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