Re: Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion

[Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:55 PM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:42 AM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Mikkel is correct, we may not want a purely random per connection
> behavior, but rather something "random per destination". This would better
> mimic the opt-out behavior of a privacy-sensitive endpoint, which would
> always opt out when contacting a specific destination. If I had to
> implement it, I would not use a PRNG, but rather something compute the hash
> of a local secret and either the peer address or the peer name. That way,
> the client would opt out for all 16 Netflix connections, or for none of
> them.
>
> Or are we looking for random per-path?
>
> That notion would seem to tilt the balance more in favour of the
> "discretionary" option over the "negotiated" one on the basis that
> spinning/not doesn't become a linkability consideration.
>

Yes, per path makes sense to me. I think the linkability concern here is
weak, but it doesn't hurt any to do this per path.