[NCAP-Discuss] First (early) draft of Study 1 report for review and comment

[Thomas, Matthew]

Dear colleagues,

Please find some comments below on the first draft of the Study 1 report.  Overall, the report is well written, clear, and easy to follow.


  *   Section 2.2 Name Collisions:  It appears the terminology from the original NCAP proposed definition [1] and the examples in this section have changed in subtle ways. Examples 1 through 4 in the Study 1 report refer to “Alice’s company” while the proposed definition refer to Alice as an individual, not an employee of a company. While this semantic difference might seem pedantic, it muddles the interpretation of an individual user inducing/incurring a name collision event as opposed to an employee, who via their network administrator’s election of search lists, unknowingly incurs a name collision event.
  *   Section 2.2 Name Collisions: Overall, the spirit of the examples defined in the original NCAP proposed definition [1] are captured in examples 1 through 4; however, it can be challenging to explicitly determine which “Scope of Inquiry” directly maps to a specific example in the Study 1 report. To help eliminate reader confusion, explicitly labeling/mapping examples 1 through 4 to the various items in the “Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project” sections A.a-c and B.a-c would be helpful.
  *   Section 2.2 Name Collisions: On line 155, the report states that “All four of these types of name collisions are in scope of Study 1”.  Per the proposed definition [1], we should extend this paragraph to clearly state which examples are “In scope and subject of data studies” and which are “In scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies”.
  *   Section 3.5.3 Detection of Leaking Clients: With regards to the WPAD and client-side name collision vulnerability papers, the Study 1 report should note a key finding from this research is that a significant amount of name collision events occur due to transient devices going from one network to another.
  *   Section 3.6.3 JAS Report: Line 926 should be further clarified that while it is “in the parlance of NCAP Phase 1” it is not to be the subject of data studies per the proposed definition B.c [1].


Best,

Matt Thomas

[1]https://community.icann.org/display/NCAP/NCAP+Working+Documents?preview=%2F79437474%2F111387704%2FDefinition+of+Name+Collision+and+Scope+of+Work+for+the+NCAP.pdf


From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Matt Larson <matt.larson at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:20 AM
To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [NCAP-Discuss] First (early) draft of Study 1 report for review and comment

Dear colleagues,

Attached is an early draft of the Study 1 report. Please note that the report is still incomplete, but I'm forwarding so you can review the current contents, which are tentatively complete through Section 3 (Review of Previous Work). In any case, Section 3 will represent the bulk of the study. Because this is an early draft, please review for content and substance only; the completed report will be thoroughly copy edited.

For this version, I suggest focusing on questions such as these:

- Are there any source/references missing?
- Are the issues described correct?
- For each source/reference, are the correct important findings described?

There will be an NCAP Discussion Group call this Wednesday, 22 January (specific details to follow from Kim), and this report will be discussed in the context of the Board's questions from the initial resolution kicking off the NCAP report. Please review the report before then, if at all possible.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Matt
--
Matt Larson, VP of Research
ICANN Office of the CTO



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200128/960740d3/attachment.html>