On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote a message of 52 lines which said:
> Ummm, yes, but your message (and the Introduction) made it sound > like the emphasis of the draft is on listing the privacy > implications, and not the suggested changes to deal with > them. Choose a story and stick to it. :-) Let me rephrase it to be sure I've understood: I should split the draft in two, one draft only exposing the privacy issues and another one (or several?) describing the proposed solutions. Correct? If so, what is the opinion of the rest of this working group? > We haven't gotten into commenting on the stuff in section 5. When we > do, I'll point out the futility of gratuitous queries. Please go ahead, you can discuss any part of the draft you want. > "has a relationship" is fairly weak. Rendering the web page returned > by a browser query can easily generate 50 DNS queries to places the > user has never heard of. Your document needs to cover the privacy > implications of DNS requests that were done without > intention. Further, the world is more than browsers. The fact that > an app I am using is doing a lookup for imap.badplace.org is also > important. Send text :-) I suggest not to do this myself but to point to the various studies using the DNS traffic to find out what the people are doing. Would it address your request? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
