Re: [dnssd] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with COMMENT)

[Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Stephen - let me summarize the responses to your comments; please let us know if these responses will be sufficient to address your comments...
> 
>> - 6.6: I think one can also leak private information by
>> searching in too broad a scope, e.g. if the client can be
>> fingerprinted allowing re-identification. I think that's
>> different from the example given, and maybe worth noting too.
> 
> Kerry pointed out that the difference between the threat from searching for services as opposed to other forms of name resolution in arbitrary zones is unclear.  While it would be possible to edit this text to include searching as well as registration, I think the resulting text would be too restrictive to allow for useful solutions.  Would you be willing to accept the text as it exists or do you have some other new text to suggest?
> 
> - Ralph
> 

I tried to make it clear in my response yesterday that this was a non-issue but maybe I wasn't as direct as I should have been.

There is no leak of private information by the client. The client is in total control of the scope and the recipient of it's query.

Tom