[dnsext] Privacy in IP address indication (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00.txt

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 06:10:09PM +0000,
 Alex Bligh <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 64 lines which said:

> I have read the draft.

Me too, otherwise I wouldn't comment.

>  Given people make DNS queries in general so they can communicate
>  with the (e.g.)  A record given, and the (e.g.) http server on that
>  IP address can log connections, what privacy is lost by
>  transmitting the address given in full?

This would lose a lot of privacy since the IP address of the "desktop"
client would be transmitted in full, not only to the HTTP server but
also to middlemen, the authoritative servers of the root, the TLD,
etc.

The draft has a provision for this (section 4.1) but it is just a MAY
and does not blend well with the general zone cut rules.

Also, the HTTP request may be through a proxy, too, so you cannot even
say that the HTTP server would know the address.

>  You leave this choice to the recursive resolver, I think, not the
>  client, and require that at least some bits are cleared.

The biggest privacy problem with the current draft is that, for the
"desktop" client, the use of the new extension is opt-out, not opt-in
(section 8.1) which disturbs me a lot.