(Moving this conversation to DNS-SD mailing list) On Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:53 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Tim, > At 05:18 22-06-2016, Tim Chown wrote: > >We're encouraging discussion of privacy considerations in the WG. As a > >result, we now have a draft (see below), including an initial proposal > >for a solution, for which we'd welcome wider review. The draft also > >addresses mDNS/DNS-SD privacy within single subnet scenarios. > > One of the privacy issue identified in the draft (Section 2.4) is device > fingerprinting. In Section 3.1, it is proposed to solve the privacy issues > described in Section 2.1 by obfuscating instance names. If I had to pick one > privacy threat for that I would choose "correlation". Obfuscating service names > would not address that.
Section 3 describes an initial design that was then abandoned. I guess that in the next revision we could just remove that section entirely. On the other hand, the proposal was indeed to use different obfuscated names at different locations. > If I understood the draft correctly, the solution "to prevent tracking over time > and location, different string values would be used at different locations, or at > different times". QR-codes are used to generate a shared secret and establish > trust between two or more "friends". The private discovery service relies on pre-existing pairings. The pairing solutions are only drafted in very vague terms in the draft. I really wonder whether we should go define a complete pairing protocol. Is that in-charter for DNS-SD? What about competing with existing solutions over Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and certainly many more? -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
