Re: [Pearg] IP address Privacy Interim Follow up - Reputation System

Shivan Kaul Sahib <> Wed, 27 January 2021 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A983A0E22 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:23:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qD2eCvOBHCOd for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B6673A0E1F for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d7so50703otf.3 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:23:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=msv3AnYHI1zPdfRu2LwMqq4j3D58mGAcR9gWC4ENoN4=; b=i4Iu3SuS7fODT29j88pTGlfz4XsfmY+XkB8L76tjdUahc+zBcf1SIa9R9EIbounQws qCzkoMjwdNcB87oMwy1UbSkvVSYCSZQEpjLlp+sJFLnxKPvz3Lqp/3lIUNVYjU/nEedN U5O31bEIXJfBmh3bpjBLEJHogSthLwbX4qAG85HIJPZ0AAP8Ui16i5O8jZEf/fD5lGug oAJM8GJHqwT6nWkD1F6TRVyyKhzAy4rKZQcicfDYhBzbhwEQRPlb9SSBPSB3amNRy8mj J7a6sIcOdMc6k0ZZ/l/UlrM7d3sfeklxZMdRdKSVtHRnz85Qpca4uCSZ3LC8foCGPzEI wApg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=msv3AnYHI1zPdfRu2LwMqq4j3D58mGAcR9gWC4ENoN4=; b=kIsMRWrSsMU00PlHmJYIBw/TICZHRlUHfUkWrXISGE8d69wIo9eyDosz2DZOYNFgJy 2RLM31SNce9sKer35e81rb1ghoM32pHFfZCBSbsRkgXTU74vC91AvE3Jud3JEaxeHMcM Pig+dETCpGUyu7nq3bD25OEsLzhcqTJA6ytgGmi94fwnunJfmb9sqpulBgAPaOhm1vXE L1tePx7mF8MgcI8pwmX5mL8TBIBpC38redDwWtOCn28cEh14+vcB+pqlZXBlXKcB6oR3 t9O/0LOrPNSFb6ryUVXy5W4iSN6bxX4Qt/029ejRIBk/WlccUTA3b/SnZDTNoHSft9NP A9OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532I2jJSyc6bWohcD/nUvHWIREZBAPD4T/FlLpUuIjy+CqMmJHHL WsFIcdyu9GxUI5bQKOFaEN4bzP/BEoFs9Nz/g88f0/nf1P/J7w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQvl8SZdyhRsh15va6iKBWeOGfBAECgMOMElxBxwVuszMcK6vjcQSq3E6q7D7O0zH962XaDDvh9fWmoo8l6UM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:4006:: with SMTP id h6mr5610137ots.33.1611707024618; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:23:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210121153816.lri4s3iqpjsh3plo@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20210121153816.lri4s3iqpjsh3plo@localhost>
From: Shivan Kaul Sahib <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:23:08 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Matthew Finkel <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000af39ee05b9d6c8a2"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] IP address Privacy Interim Follow up - Reputation System
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: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:23:47 -0000

Hi Matt, the Privacy Pass protocol being standardized at the IETF has
similar use cases: A
good way to drive discussion is to put together an Internet Draft that
folks can review and comment on!

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:38 AM Matthew Finkel <>

> Hi Everyone,
> I'd like to follow up on the topic of reputation systems we briefly
> touched on Tuesday. I'd like to understand the criteria of a system that
> can help the Internet move towards deprecating IP addresses as a
> fundamental signal in account-security/anti-fraud/anti-abuse systems.
> >From the perspective of a web user agent, I'll start with the following
> properties:
>   - A reputation and its associated identity must not be linkable
>     - This excludes the user and, possibly, a "reputation provider"
>   - A reputation must not be universally unique
>     - I suggest bucketing reputation into ~5 sets
>   - A reputation must not be a tracking vector
>     - Two "proofs of reputation" must not be linkable, neither across
>       sites nor on the same site.
>   - A client must be able to know (or query) its recent reputation
>   - A service provider must be able to increase and decrease a
>     reputation
>   - A client must only use a recent reputation
>     - A reputation should become stale and invalid within a short period
>       of time
>   - A client must be able to audit its reputation
>   - A client must be able to dispute changes in its reputation
>   - transitioning from a "bad" reputation to a "good" reputation should
>     be reasonably possible
>   - Computing a reputation must be well defined
>   - The system must support "anonymous" identities
>     - A client must be able to create a new and unique reputation not
>       linkable to previous reputations or identities
>   - A reputation must not be influenced by an associated IP address
> While these are not all hard requirements, it is important that this
> system doesn't become a "virtual credit bureau" where someone's
> reputation is based on black magic and good fortune.
> As a meta comment, I'm relatively new to IETF/IRTF processes, so I
> appreciate recommendations on how this discussion should proceed.
> Thanks,
> Matt
> --
> Pearg mailing list