Subject: [dns-privacy] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:33:36 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for doing this work.

You might want to include a reference to ENUM in Section 2.2.

I wonder if it's worth mentioning traffic analysis somewhere in the
document (or if it's mentioned in one of the references I didn't have
time to scan?). Even for an observer who does not have access to the
content of DNS requests/responses, I would imagine it's possible to glean
some information about what the user is doing based solely on the
metadata associated with the DNS traffic (e.g., identifying when a host
is likely making a particular type of request or a specific sequence of
requests).

In Section 4, I would caution against saying there is no court precedent
unless you know for sure that there is not. My guess would be that DNS
traffic logs have probably been entered into evidence in some court
somewhere in the world for some purpose, so there may well be some
precedent about something even if we don't know what it is or how broadly
it applies.