Re: A question about user tracking with QUIC

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:59 PM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> 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]> <[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.
>


+1

Behcet

> -- Christian Huitema
>