Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt> (A Model for Reputation Reporting) to Informational RFC
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 21 August 2013 07:17 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B219321F9C46 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVEtSVgIliQh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D108121F9CB5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w62so53326wes.29 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mqmjvSIcxbLnsQDD6LswoNzqGZ6rT0U7UP7ZPtlZTTc=; b=ZufhSV5vOu8PYzHooAaaraZNBtwzmlyfoWOBlVXBnFqW/OpOQlO74DGPAKOpNGF1s+ LpKFHE4+HsTnI2ZGHJuopGZVOLH1m6yyg2YbcimTp2nYfBZVV+ZHVVHahJvE7C6jbL9X M0sgnx2K7sSpnqJatXolf9/0fg8MksfehN8vzsS2LaJ4WYZCGT1twv9uMa9RZAPyozGz P/oLavGAQP7/W2uXvpqHTqXybQ30Ru87qxtAs87LFY1z/Eu29+x+gnPzgwwC+fsTx9JI ZHjbFzBsFga+DHOR9fpq80dtvhzphqvu/b/aObCdNH+dnimuhEt62Kt+Ozyn25GsbGCN mEMA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.109.68 with SMTP id hq4mr4576308wjb.12.1377069431969; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.125.36 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130815104802.0b87f9b0@resistor.net>
References: <20130815144507.22504.36661.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130815104802.0b87f9b0@resistor.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:17:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ-o_1jmLExgGxdNVG686Zs-n8iW54m5b9rU96vxR-d1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-model-07.txt> (A Model for Reputation Reporting) to Informational RFC
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0102e6da52e0eb04e46ff604"
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:17:13 -0000
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote: > The Privacy Considerations Section focuses on data in transit and > collection of data only. Section 8.1 mentions protecting the data from > "unauthorized access and viewing". That would only be unauthorized viewing > while the data is in transit. > Sure, mentioning something about the stored aggregated data also makes sense in Section 8. I'll add something. > > I don't know whether people overlook this; the queries leak out > information. Information which the user might consider as private is sent > out without the person's knowledge. I suggest pushing that discussion to > the specification which defines the identity (e.g. draft-ietf-repute-email- > **identifiers-08). > I don't think this point is specific to email identifiers. This is the right place to say it. > > As a general comment I would say that the issue is less about privacy and > more about reputation. There is a saying: Tell me what you read and I will > tell you who you are. > > Reputations can certainly be private things, both as an aggregate "result" and as the pieces of data that allowed that result to be reached. But I don't think that's a new point given the above. The new text will cover it. -MSK