Andrew, Thank you and the work party for this document. I think it will prove to be useful. I'm attaching a copy of the doc with my comments. In addition I would really like to see some kind of summary (table perhaps) that presents the following for the various techniques: - advantages / disadvantages - cryptographic strength (I realize this could be difficult since not all are well-studied at this point). - efficiency (i.e. CPU time to anonymize some amount of (DITL) data). - whether or not "decryption with the same key" is a property of the technique - known implementations Also I would like to better understand if the different techniques have any different cryptographic properties when there is at least one known true -> anonymized mapping. I think we should assume it is trivial for a consumer of the anonymized data to inject beacon queries that would enable them to know the anonymized value of a specific source IP. DW
On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:19 AM, Andrew Mcconachie <andrew.mcconachie@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RSSAC Caucus Members,
On behalf of the RSSAC Caucus Work Party on Harmonization of Anonymization Procedures for Data Collecting, please find Harmonizing the Anonymization of Queries to the Root v1 attached.
Please send your comments and/or additions to the list by February 27th, 2018. Depending on the volume of comments received the work party may then decide to create a new version or forward v1 to the RSSAC for a vote on publication.
Thanks, Andrew
<RSSAC0XX_Harmonizating_Anonymization_Queries_Root_v1.docx> <RSSAC0XX_Harmonizating_Anonymization_Queries_Root_v1.pdf> _______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus