Section 4 claims to make one statement, then fails to properly support that statement with its example.
The point that changes in one part of the stack can eliminate security or privacy advances in other parts is a good one. That is what the example demonstrates (sort of, the draft in question has known security and privacy downsides). But that isn't what "interplay among mitigations" suggests.
The title (and introductory paragraph) would seem to suggest that deploying one set of mitigations can negatively affect other mitigations. That might be true, I can't honestly say for sure, but the example doesn't support the argument. draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet is not really advertised as a privacy-enhancing feature.
Section 4 claims to make one statement, then fails to properly support that statement with its example.
The point that changes in one part of the stack can eliminate security or privacy advances in other parts is a good one. That is what the example demonstrates (sort of, the draft in question has known security and privacy downsides). But that isn't what "interplay among mitigations" suggests.
The title (and introductory paragraph) would seem to suggest that deploying one set of mitigations can negatively affect other mitigations. That might be true, I can't honestly say for sure, but the example doesn't support the argument. draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet is not really advertised as a privacy-enhancing feature.