Re: [DNSOP] revisiting outstanding dicusses for 6304bis

[Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

Working group, 

I would direct your attention to the current discuss, here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6304bis/ballot/

Should we consider recommendations with respect to treatment of logging or storage of queries or the extent to which such queries should be protected? 

Thanks
Joel

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 08:25, Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  The updated text points out the risk, but it would have been nice seeing it phrased in a way to encourage mitigation of that risk (recommend not to log).  It'd easier to attack a system and gain access to logs than to observe session traffic.
>> 
>> AS112 operators do so for the public benefit. There are very good operational reasons why they *should* log, in order to help find bugs and to provide better service. You are asking that the very tiny chance of a privacy breach should trump that operational benefit.
> 
> As an FYI - I wouldn't put this in the privacy bucket, but rather security as it reveals information about a network that could be used in future attacks against the organization leaking their data. 
>> 
>> The mention of the privacy issue with logging is sufficient, and going further would have negative consequences to the operations of this service.
> 
> Mitigating the risks could be helpful and might mean protecting access to logs in cases where logs must be generated. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Kathleen
>> 
>> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen