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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

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

Thanks,

Ben C.