Re: [Pearg] [Maprg] Guidelines for Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet

Kevin Borgolte <> Thu, 13 December 2018 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099B3130EB1 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:51:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 18.099
X-Spam-Level: ******************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCXQcDDhJHE2 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE109130EAB for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t33so1451599qtt.4 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:51:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mail; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5F24E1a4hKzTbtIdX4+xES6SRu911O4ZUP1VAn1egr8=; b=bU2dbUyT6sCifpqEY5fdG1TAwCBQTJ0E7iOwSnKpWNXMKRXoGaiont5Sw48GJBhSt1 QH45s0XQG6Qkk+OUa2elyN1X2O0CXgXFnAOjc6ANIkOMiHnszcb1C34NQtbUbtgefwB3 74VLE61TjheIZOENBpSy8HNNRBoEPhicp/p76YGKWHvb1j7vzFCkQv55Z+4vm51fXLIm i6I/EuF2n6QkadGQG6oAQRupQKPu16r5Xk/8Cpy3KCLK3lA2agtVJ9JbmBMkhCrltIG+ T3xvQyCMbPFFDu1FwHKDj2Yl540OR0mEuF/dblVzKCtB7hC8+VFTO7ixezau74a1WzPV /G1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5F24E1a4hKzTbtIdX4+xES6SRu911O4ZUP1VAn1egr8=; b=RHi9jIQuMU6Apudn+f4psnLkSKZtQSAOuhePIginfpaB3GbyTGuxFg9OnHCK23nnpt MZaYZVpVgo4SnY1W+k4vjFWRP0ff0VcqbKlOZk9R7JLRKVmEH0gbmXrvRKNNtIULMGQA d7+s0j7G/DRiGE6G6/Uj9gAyWM6oE3ov5jdqw4OkbKmWwm0JngR+NcaC47cVorzjtKcO FDs0JntniSb0msiNobbFyeCa1DyLAFAGBcyeXsClT9MFmimtZmlGGaHMbKF9XchVJXNn HZYNkGTh45TfQ5VH/QsPzkGk/B+AlF/2L096CnGwT2sn1uLvMW8JKSz31dQRRRIGzkah dwYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZERb/XwE8vv/eIj2EXU/p7Qd3b3GQEr2ii+ZIPnl8++qg4PPiA pP0SEN/3QyRsJ90l8ySCx4pguA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UWCKWcVx+6cNVx+SmKXMMRuw1zp/1rR9s2avMIp626YUOlj7Ft0VqYK7KUtG/xk7Uaq4NsSw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8b64:: with SMTP id d36mr605085qvc.233.1544741462529; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id u16sm2854574qkg.14.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\))
From: Kevin Borgolte <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:51:01 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Iain Learmonth <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] [Maprg] Guidelines for Performing Safe Measurement on the Internet
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:51:06 -0000

Hi Iain,

I agree with Lars that there is a ton of prior work that needs to be included. To me, the current draft reads a bit obvious for folks involved in the area already, but does not provide enough detail for novice researchers. Particular for novices, an Informational RFC detailing best practices for active and passive measurements would certainly be useful, so that digging through tens of existing documents (of which some may not be available anymore) isn't strictly necessary (effectively a systemization of knowledge).

A resource that should be included is the Menlo report [1] and its companion [2].

I'm not a fan of the current active/passive split with the note that "some parts may apply to both." For this kind of RFC, I expect people to only read what they think is applicable, e.g., concerning passive measurements, thus possibly missing out on crucial information that is in the active measurements section. I recommend to restructure it with a "general considerations" section upfront.

The current draft is still a bit too bare-bones for me to provide more in-depth feedback. It should be broader and provide more detail and references in multiple sections that are currently just one sentence long each. I'm sure some of the references Lars mentioned will help to expand the sections. Please keep us posted for major updates!



> On Dec 11, 2018, at 09:13, Iain Learmonth <> wrote:
> Hi Lars,
> On 11/12/2018 14:03, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> there is a ton of prior work in this space. See for starters. I am sure there are other PAM or IMC keynotes or presentations on this. It would be useful to build on this prior work.
> Thanks for the pointer! I've added an issue [0] to my GitHub repo and
> will be sure to look through these.
> Another resource I'm planning to draw on would be CAIDA's  Promotion of
> Data Sharing [1] webpage, and the references there, which contains a lot
> of discussion regarding passive measurement.
> Thanks,
> Iain.
> [0]:
> [1]:
> -- 
> Pearg mailing list