Re: A question about user tracking with QUIC

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 08 June 2021 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329DF3A1D73 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bAVDgPXosUvr for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D86B43A19CA for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id s107so28016731ybi.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 19:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wum1tge6DZg/KTDcbrT/SGUGcHbJemht47VTLSLKuPM=; b=vedGsuVWhCPzCH8hkftXH8o3G+GzCsjOot4G29/7I88QILg63hylER7sELaRldS4AO kcBQhHG+c0L5z9kNPbtPqS+IQihU0+5ZVtmFSvixdoCLE9xo1htHRFwP/rNAUkt1bUVH e5MZohI2PO2rbUvAvYyb2ceHE1+fPHloE7+jRZMZgv7N57wVnW/MgDtfaVvqtW8iA5mN A30Xxej4YX0jzCDnFJ/EDdunxpXajlzw47MQuig3QVMPffTUAYj0QUPRIiqNEA1vRSuc yCWYCiThqqoeJnTlBKpxC0IyVcM3FNEHyBUlTSSP8V/uVy/Vn+on6Z7TBl1vbvfApEpZ 4jdw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wum1tge6DZg/KTDcbrT/SGUGcHbJemht47VTLSLKuPM=; b=n8d9NHQFACeNA45SRSarVMg3JoTOhFH8PjtzoYQy6+Bj+aySxT8O6WfVSoXfHmVS8f URNRsPE4CBAOWojVGgzpHP9vIHIaIvYQDTQ0RMyjVUQIoqiNqt3/ZepkAtF3srwTZ1JA MivnBNBe9PhtarSPjpdCim4LAEj8OhZZMkAzPbL9qnN3tkejlzIT+jC9HW0XxyP+V3Lf a131Q2ogTTXnB7wstZOHTt2Ygx/PIW9C9aMg5xpOO4p57Bq7nj5IlFtRQqzjNYajAArW FkPV+QvQqEF4nWsrp1yQwDujYOAm8AAXEyYRQKpZr1eI9SF1lZxOBb8HNoRAQVDfMMgf MoHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533dbHNG1sG2XOrWPyyMNgN2Uw84RjqE1LYJN5SiuXVYdQCsAavL DE979AbpE+Y7aJNug+6kF0nG/WLDVmckw7rvBG0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwGfRybiD6a/gwDkT8i8X6ZE5z/Z9hFFT9wyajUh2ALq3Tgo3j2IHNAZYFVuOuYxZCitU5nVBEX0ylr4j+gQ5g=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2a04:: with SMTP id q4mr29773137ybq.154.1623120711546; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 19:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210607123854.GA16312@nic.fr> <CAC7UV9bkqOeCgDsCH+Hdq0v=zmRKNNDtpfiq6Ap_vzm5zUzGVg@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZiUe5TyY3Tv432__GH=v+Lpv2EZah0G4ZD+g3E2FkaMg@mail.gmail.com> <20210607130422.GA27971@sources.org> <EE723B6D-7B6B-4B68-A4A1-F1809CF68F1B@gmail.com> <20210607142015.GA31240@sources.org> <C1B56269-0EF7-42EC-8824-70F7485807B2@gmail.com> <20210607190027.GC5394@sources.org> <7CE3F7FC-21C1-4519-AA60-A2FDFFC512EE@gbiv.com> <CALGR9oZFbUnZyRnL-TPvMac25cjp9WTReTAHWLGi+eO3_T7aww@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-eLegqkLw8dJzPwpV97wsdw3BXh7M-=P2BoYC=B04pwSA@mail.gmail.com> <8d9bfd40-59c5-286b-f2b6-64d4e552c69e@huitema.net> <CALGR9oYZUxLmKHt9fxP6Bj11CMiPRfwVr_5Qb-uhnV+moapyrA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oYZUxLmKHt9fxP6Bj11CMiPRfwVr_5Qb-uhnV+moapyrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 21:51:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dN_TiArH+N2ufpDwq+YwF93Q9ko+j38==rDeVje3gLZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A question about user tracking with QUIC
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000707c2f05c4383d16"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/eLqZGRIaLMXUdn3UT5CvIbTyf-E>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 02:52:09 -0000

Hi, Lucas,

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 9:19 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hey Spencer, Christian,
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:58 AM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
> 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 <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Not disagreeing with either of you here. Although perhaps I was thinking
> more broadly that QUIC-specific concerns, and something more like "privacy
> considerations of long-lived and resumable connections for protocol design
> and user agents". This to me would appear to me to fit some of PEARG's
> charter goals such as: "Formulate better models for analyzing and
> quantifying privacy risks", "Offer guidance on the use of emerging
> techniques and new uses of existing ones", and "engage with other
> organisations e.g. PETS, SOUPS, W3C and the Privacy Interest Group
> therein". Others could disagree with me, and I'd encourage them to express
> an opinion so we can figure it all out. I guess I was speculating that the
> process of work in an RG might actually help us determine the right type of
> text (if anything) that should be written for affected protocols. That
> could provide input into concrete consideration for protocol designers or
> deployers, best written in an IETF WG. The best place for QUIC work is this
> WG.
>

This all seems very reasonable to me. The other question is about timing -
how urgent do people think this guidance is?

Christian characterized "if you don't want to be tracked when you migrate,
you probably shouldn't migrate" as a classic mitigation, and I'm also
wondering if we still have the classic level of concern about traceability.
If our level of concern has been increasing, that might make things more
urgent. But as you said, it's good for us to encourage other people to
express an opinion.

Best,

Spencer


> Cheers,
> Lucas
>