Re: A question about user tracking with QUIC

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 6/7/2021 6:50 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Lucas,
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 4:22 PM Lucas Pardue<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Speaking as an individual.
>>
>> Through the lens of server-side observation and linking of clients, I
>> think Christian makes astute observations on some common concerns and
>> QUIC-specific ones. Roy too makes some great additional observations about
>> the context of discussion.
>>
> Agreed. Very helpful.
>
>
>> It seems to me this topic might well do with some time to draw out the
>> considerations for documentation. However, the applicability draft is
>> already through a second round of WGLC, and that timeline seems too tight
>> for inclusion of such considerations. I would seem to me that the PEARG
>> (Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research Group) [1] is ideally suited
>> towards housing effort on deeper/broader analysis of privacy aspects of
>> protocol evolution (I might even stick a note in for multipath TCP as
>> something that moves the needle on privacy of "legacy" application
>> protcols).
>>
> Ignoring the question of PEARG interest in this topic for now, I'm assuming
> that these observations would likely end up in an Informational RFC, is
> that right?
>
> An IRTF RG can publish Informational and Experimental RFCs, but not BCPs or
> standards-track documents that must be published in the IETF stream, so
> that would be an important question to answer early.

That.

The IRTF is not the IETF. IRTF research groups are best for analyzing 
difficult research issues. But if we end up doing something like 
"privacy considerations for QUIC clients", IMHO that belongs in the 
IETF, not the IRTF.

-- Christian Huitema