While I don't know if any of this is relevant to NCSG now or ever, I'm
pretty sure some of the examples in the paper did use and depend on
public DNS (at least the one I know a bit more about, NordicWay COOP).

So I think Stephanie was not far off the mark in higlighting this as
something that might become a thing of concern to NCSG at some point.

But the point about DNS latency is good. I should check if they
considered the potential impact of DNS problems.

Tapani

On Nov 11 20:41, Mueller, Milton L ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> 
> Steph:
> This paper deals with connected vehicles. You say that domain names will “undoubtedly be involved” at some point. I seriously don’t think they will be. The latency involved in resolving domain names would not be suitable for vehicle guidance. It’s not even clear that internet protocol will be involved in these technologies.
> 
> FWIW
> --MM
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 11:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: new paper from the IWGDPT
> 
> 
>  This is slightly off-topic, but members of this list who track IOT and privacy might be interested in this recently released paper from the Berlin Group (aka the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications).  No specific focus on the DNS but this working paper is a good roundup of latest data protection thinking on this topic.  There will undoubtedly be domain names involved at some point, the question seems to me to be who will control the data from a content perspective.
> 
> Stephanie Perrin