Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Russ, thanks for your review. Fernando, thanks for making the updates. I entered a Yes ballot.

Alissa


On Sep 16, 2020, at 9:08 AM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 16, 2020, at 7:39 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi, Russ,

On 13/9/20 14:46, Russ Housley wrote:
Fernando:
Thanks a lot for your comments! In-line....

On 11/9/20 17:16, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Almost Ready
[....]
Major Concerns:
In Section 2.2, the discussion of DNS names comes out of the blue.  In
RFC 4941, there was context for this discussion that has been dropped
from this document.  Some context is needed.

I reared the text, but I don't find it as "coming out of the blue". I guess one could add something to Section 2.1 to include DNS names... but, at the end of the day, the name is just another identifier.
GRANT ALL ON wp_si6networks.* TO 'wp_si6networks'@'localhost';
Or put another way, I'm not sure what's the "context" I would add if asked to.

Thoughts?
This point from RFC 4941 is what I was talking about.
  One of the requirements for correlating seemingly unrelated
  activities is the use (and reuse) of an identifier that is
  recognizable over time within different contexts.  IP addresses
  provide one obvious example, but there are more.  Many nodes also
  have DNS names associated with their addresses, in which case the DNS
  name serves as a similar identifier.  Although the DNS name
  associated with an address is more work to obtain (it may require a
  DNS query), the information is often readily available.  In such
  cases, changing the address on a machine over time would do little to
  address the concerns raised in this document, unless the DNS name is
  changed as well (see Section 4).

I see.

How about if we add back these bits, with the text resulting in:
---- cut here ----
 One of the requirements for correlating seemingly unrelated
 activities is the use (and reuse) of an identifier that is
 recognizable over time within different contexts.  IP addresses
 provide one obvious example, but there are more.

 Many nodes have DNS names associated with their addresses, in which
 case the DNS name serves as a similar identifier.  Although the DNS
 name associated with an address is more work to obtain (it may
 require a DNS query), the information is often readily available.  In
 such cases, changing the address on a machine over time would do
 little to address the concerns raised in this document, unless the
 DNS name is changed as well (see Section 4).

 Web browsers and servers typically exchange "cookies"
 with each other [RFC6265].  Cookies allow web servers to correlate a
 current activity with a previous activity.  One common usage is to
 send back targeted advertising to a user by using the cookie supplied
 by the browser to identify what earlier queries had been made (e.g.,
 for what type of information).  Based on the earlier queries,
 advertisements can be targeted to match the (assumed) interests of
 the end-user.
---- cut here ----

?

Would this address your concern?

Yes, thanks.

Russ
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux