Re: [CDNi] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

Ben C,

> On 19 May 2016, at 01:51, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 18 May 2016, at 18:38, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>> I’ll let the authors respond to most of your comments but I wanted to respond to one of them, see below.
>> 
>>> On 18 May 2016, at 23:32, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> - 7.3: "Making detailed CDNI logging
>>>  information known to the uCDN does not represent a particular privacy
>>>  concern because the uCDN is already exposed at request redirection
>>>  time to most of the information that shows up as CDNI logging
>>>  information (e.g., enduser IP@, URL, HTTP headers - at least when
>>>  HTTP redirection is used between uCDN and dCDN)."
>>> 
>>> I agree this is mostly true for HTTP redirection. But as you mention, the
>>> assertion seems to fall down for DNS redirection, where the uCDN may have
>>> considerably less information. I think some different guidance for that
>>> case may be needed.
>> 
>> True, but…making detailed CDNI logging information known to the uCDN does not expose any more information to the uCDN than if the uCDN had chosen to perform the content delivery itself.
>> 
>> Typically when entity A contracts out work to entity B, entity A is entitled to see all records produced by entity B on entity A’s behalf.
> 
> That may be a reasonable argument (I will let the thread from Stephen's comment play out), but that's not the argument the draft makes.

Agreed.

> If there are arguments that apply to DNS redirection (such as the one you mention), I think they should be included.

Agreed.

Ben