Hi Alissa! On Nov 20, 2018, at 20:18, Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in> wrote:
> I support Benjamin's first DISCUSS point. In addition to documenting the > privacy considerations, I think it's important for this document to be crystal > clear about who is meant to be doing the data collection -- namely, the server > operator. There are some statements in the document that otherwise could be > construed to be encouraging third-party passive monitoring of DNS traffic > without explaining why, which seems like a problem: I think it may be worth exploring why that's a problem. I think a capture format should be oblivious to the circumstances of the capture; otherwise you're heading down a road well-trodden by such ludicrous ideas as text format definitions putting restrictions on the kinds of stories people can write, or scripts that are not to be used to write particular words. The usefulness of a capture format is not improved by putting conditions on its use, and neither is user privacy. The way to privacy is surely to use transports where clear text is only available where it needs to be visible. So I don't understand your comment. (Quite possibly I'm just being dim; I just got home from Bangkok. I came the long way round.) I think providing use-cases in the document to illustrate what it's for us good, but I don't think they should be prescriptive (in any direction). Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
