[dns-privacy] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have added more detail to point #3 below as requested on today's telechat.

(1) Picking up on a Gen-ART review comment: Section 5.1.7 seems to be aimed at
entities other than the operators of DNS privacy services. That is, the
"impact" seems like it is on third-party entities, but then the "optimization"
talks about DNS privacy service operators using "alternative means for traffic
monitoring." I guess what I don't understand is why the DNS privacy service
operators need alternative means, since they still have access to the cleartext.

(2) I think Section 6 needs to clarify that it is providing suggestions only on
matters relating to the technical operation of DNS privacy services that may be
described in DROP policies, and not on any other matters. There are numerous
other matters that are typically addressed in privacy statements (e.g., what
form of legal process the operator requires to supply data to law enforcement,
how the operator handles data about children, etc.). This document should not
give the impression that the listed items in the subsections are an exhaustive
list, nor should it attempt to offer an exhaustive list.

(3) I do not think item #5 in Section 6.1.2 belongs in this document. I don't
see how it is within scope for the IETF to be specifying these sorts of best
practices, which are not technical or operational in nature but focus on legal
matters and likely require the involvement of lots of lawyers in order to get
the provisions written. This section implies that the DROP documents would
become legal/compliance documents by nature, which may or may not be a good
choice but is not within the remit of the IETF to specify. Also, I think what
this section asks for is not the norm today and therefore it seems odd for the
IETF to specify a best practice that operators may not have any chance of being
able to comply with (e.g., listing specific law enforcement agencies, privacy
laws, or countries where data centers will reside and the data will never move
from them).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1:

"This document does not, however,
      define a particular Privacy statement, nor does it seek to provide
      legal advice or recommendations as to the contents."

This is not accurate. The document does make recommendations about the contents.

Section 3: "the privacy of the DNS" strikes me as a bit of an odd term as the
DNS itself doesn't have privacy needs. Perhaps this means the privacy
properties of the DNS.

Section 5.2.3: I think the table and its associated text belongs in Appendix B.
It is not BCP material itself and is not readily understandable without the
rest of the text in Appendix B anyway.

Section 5.2.4: "Resolvers _might_ receive client identifiers e.g.  MAC
addresses in EDNS(0) options - some Customer-premises equipment (CPE) devices
are known to add them." It would be great to add a citation there if one exists.

Section 5.3.3:

"Operators should not provide identifiable data to third-parties
   without explicit consent from clients (we take the stance here that
   simply using the resolution service itself does not constitute
   consent)."

I'm not convinced its appropriate for this document to be commenting on what
constitutes consent.

I also think that as a general matter the research in this area demonstrates
that privacy-by-consent is broken and that the number of cases in which an
individual providing consent for identifiable data sharing actually reads,
understands, and agrees with the terms of the sharing is miniscule.

It seems like the real best current practice mitigation here is to not share
identifiable data.

Section 6.1.1: "Make an explicit statement that IP addresses are treated as
PII." PII is a bit of a jurisdiction-specific term. I would recommend using the
definition of personal data from RFC 6973.

Section 6.2: This section should be an appendix.

Section A.2: I don't understand why the reference to Section 8 of RFC 8484
isn't just in the bulleted list with all the other documents, and why there is
a generic note included with it when the specific privacy implications are more
completely discussed in the referenced section of RFC 8484 (just like with the
other documents in the list).