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

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

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.

Ben