Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

["Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

hi Stephen,

> On 22 Nov 2017, at 11:01, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Just on this one aspect...
> 
> On 22/11/17 09:14, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
>> The request for a privacy considerations section for a single
>> protocol feature seems odd to me at best, and prejudicial at worst.
>> Where is the privacy considerations analysis for other features, for
>> instance, various header compression schemes?
> I agree that asking that there be a privacy considerations section
> in RFCs for every bit in every protocol would be OTT. But that was
> not how I interpreted Mark's mail.
> 
> What I thought was being requested and what I do think is reasonable
> is to document a privacy analysis for any quic protocol bits that are
> visible to the path.

I think it makes more sense to document a privacy analysis of the QUIC protocol's wire image, holistically -- traffic analysis doesn't use one bit at a time, and the information available in one bit may be more readily available in others up and down the stack. So if the request is a contribution to an eventual privacy considerations section for the whole wire image, then great, I'm happy to contribute it for this one bit, as I've basically already written it. :)

In light of the rest of the message, though (especially point 5, which I really can't see how to turn into something useful either for the decision process or for future users of such a facility), I read this request more as a proof of work, which is not what we do here, at least not intentionally.

Cheers,

Brian

> Whether or not some or all of that text ends up
> in some RFC is another day's work.