Change:
Add allowances in protocol doc for redemption metadata Provide privacy analysis of including metadata to architecture doc Update privacy parametrizations cc NAME NAME NAME (I don't know everyone's github usernames, so feel free to add others who will be interested in reviewing).
LGTM
The main protocol document assumes that VOPRF is the main instantiation of PrivacyPass. It also has support for ciphersuites that augment this particular instantiation. It's not clear how we'd "extend" this protocol to support other features, such as public verifiability or the k-bits of metadata. These seem to be separate "modes" or "configurations" of PrivacyPass. (I don't think it makes sense to try and cast the metadata bit variant as a different ciphersuite for the main instantiation.) I propose we add some text describing different configurations. A configuration is an instantiation of the PrivacyPass API with certain properties. A configuration may (should?) also be extensible where applicable, e.g., in the ServerUpdate message or IssuanceRequest/Response messages. Interoperability across configurations would be unsupported, as they have would like have fundamentally different properties. Some initial configurations that come to mind are: PrivacyPass with no metadata bits (VOPRF construction) PrivacyPass with k metadata bits (Google's design) PrivacyPass with public verifiability (blind signatures?) cc NAME
Added some more information about supporting additional metadata in . As discussed elsewhere, I think the way to go here is for extensions to just specify new ciphersuites with associated privacy/security guarantees.
A number of applications expect the Servers to be able to add a small amount of metadata to the Privacy Pass protocol. We should add a discussion on how metadata should be added to tokens, and then describe the subsequent impact that this would have on the client's expected privacy budget. Generally speaking, adding a bit of metadata to tokens is likely to have a very similar impact to introducing an extra Issuer, and so this is something that will have to be covered in the general parametrization guidelines in the architecture document. Specific mechanisms for adding metadata to tokens are yet to be proposed, but may appear as alternative instantiations in the protocol document, or be specified separately as individual extensions.
LGTM. We’ll need to work through the extensibility support for the metadata bit variant next.

Discussion:
5.3. <del> This setting is inspired by recently proposed APIs such as TRUST.  It is similar to the SIFV configuration, except that the verifiers V no longer interact with the issuer S.  Only C interacts with S, and this is done asynchronously to the trust attestation request from V. Hence "Asynchronous-Verifier" (SIAV). </del> <ins> This setting is inspired by recently proposed APIs such as TrustTokenAPI.  It is similar to the SIFV configuration, except that the verifiers V no longer interact with the issuer S.  Only C interacts with S, and this is done asynchronously to the trust attestation request from V.  Hence "Asynchronous-Verifier" (SIAV). </ins> When V invokes a redemption for C, C then invokes a redemption exchange with S in a separate session.  If verification is carried

one time is highly preferable (leading to a maximum of 64 possible user segregations).  However, as highlighted in parametrization, having a very large user base (> 5 million users), could potentially <del> allow for larger values (for example, up to 8 issuers).  Issuer replacements should only occur with the same frequency as config rotations as they can lead to similar losses in privacy if clients still hold redemption tokens for previously active issuers. </del> <ins> allow for larger values.  Issuer replacements should only occur with the same frequency as config rotations as they can lead to similar losses in privacy if clients still hold redemption tokens for previously active issuers. </ins> In addition, we RECOMMEND that trusted registries indicate at all times which issuers are deemed to be active.  If a client is asked to

redemption tokens in storage and then stores the newly acquired tokens. <ins> 6.1.3. In draft-davidson-pp-protocol, it is permissible to add public and private metadata bits to redemption tokens.  While the core protocol instantiation that is described does not include additional metadata, future instantiations may use this functionality to provide redemption verifiers with additional information about the user. Note that any arbitrary bits of information can be used to further segment the size of the user's anonymity set.  Any issuer that wanted to track a single user could add a single metadata bit to user tokens.  For the tracked user it would set the bit to "1", and "0" otherwise.  Adding additional bits provides an exponential increase in tracking granularity similarly to introducing more issuers (though with more potential targeting). For this reason, the amount of metadata used by an issuer in creating redemption tokens must be taken into account together with the bits of information that issuer's may learn about clients from the means listed above.  We discuss this more in parametrization. </ins> 6.2. <del> While redemption tokens themselves encode no information about the client redeeming them, problems may occur if too many redemptions are allowed in a short burst.  For instance, in the Internet setting, this may allow non-terminating verifiers to learn more information from the metadata that the client may hold (such as first-party cookies for other domains).  Mitigations for this issue are similar to those proposed in issuers for tackling the problem of having large number of issuers. </del> <ins> Privacy losses may be encountered if too many redemptions are allowed in a short burst.  For instance, in the Internet setting, this may allow non-terminating verifiers to learn more information from the metadata that the client may hold (such as first-party cookies for other domains).  Mitigations for this issue are similar to those proposed in issuers for tackling the problem of having large number of issuers. </ins> In SIAV, cached SRRs and their associated issuer public keys have a similar tracking potential to first party cookies in the browser

single reference point for those implementing the protocol. Firstly, let U be the total number of users, I be the total number of <del> issuers.  Assuming that each user accept tokens from a uniform sampling of all the possible issuers, as a worst-case analysis, this segregates users into a total of 2^I buckets.  As such, we see an exponential reduction in the size of the anonymity set for any given user.  This allows us to specify the privacy constraints of the protocol below, relative to the setting of A. </del> <ins> issuers.  We let M be the total number of metadata bits that are allowed to be added by any given issuer.  Assuming that each user accept tokens from a uniform sampling of all the possible issuers, as a worst-case analysis, this segregates users into a total of 2^I buckets.  As such, we see an exponential reduction in the size of the anonymity set for any given user.  This allows us to specify the privacy constraints of the protocol below, relative to the setting of A. </ins> 8.1. We make the following assumptions in these parameter choices. Inferring the identity of a user in a 5000-strong anonymity set is <del> difficult </del> <ins> difficult. </ins> After 2 weeks, all clients in a system will have rotated to the <del> new key </del> <ins> new key. In terms of additional metadata, the only concrete applications of Privacy Pass that use additional metadata require just a single bit. Therefore, we set the ceiling of permitted metadata to 1 bit for now, this may be revisited in future revisions. </ins> <del> The maximum choice of I is based on the equation 1/2 * U/2^I = A. This is because I issuers lead to 2^I segregations of the total user- base U.  By reducing I we limit the possibility of performing the attacks mentioned in segregation. </del> <ins> The maximum choice of I is based on the equation 1/2 * U/2^(2I) = A. This is derived from the fact that permitting I issuers lead to 2^I segregations of the total user-base U.  Moreover, if we permit M = 1, then this effectively halves the anonymity set for each issuer, and thus we incur a factor of 2I in the exponent.  By reducing I, we limit the possibility of performing the attacks mentioned in segregation. </ins> We must also account for each user holding issued data for more then one possible active keys.  While this may also be a vector for

Using the specification above, we can give some example parameterizations.  For example, the current Privacy Pass browser <del> extension PPEXT has over 150,000 active users (from Chrome and Firefox).  As a result, log_2(U/A) is approximately 5 and so the maximum value of I should be 4. </del> <ins> extension PPEXT has nearly 300000 active users (from Chrome and Firefox).  As a result, log_2(U/A) is approximately 6 and so the maximum value of I should be 3. </ins> If the value of U is much bigger (e.g. 5 million) then this would <del> permit I = log_2(5000000/5000)-1 = 8 issuers. </del> <ins> permit I = (log_2(5000000/5000)-1)/2 ~= 4 issuers. </ins> 9.

11.2. <del> The Trust Token API TRUST has been devised as a generic API for providing Privacy Pass functionality in the browser setting.  The API is intended to be implemented directly into browsers so that server's can directly trigger the Privacy Pass workflow. </del> <ins> The Trust Token API TrustTokenAPI has been devised as a generic API for providing Privacy Pass functionality in the browser setting.  The API is intended to be implemented directly into browsers so that server's can directly trigger the Privacy Pass workflow. </ins> 11.3.

requests, and is necessary for achieving the unforgeability requirement. <ins> 5.4. Some use-cases of the Privacy Pass protocol benefit from associating a limited amount of metadata with tokens that can be read by the Issuer when a token is redeemed.  Adding metadata to tokens can be used as a vector to segment the anonymity of the protocol Clients. Therefore, it is important that any metadata that is added is heavily limited. Any additional metadata that can be added to redemption tokens should be described in the specific protocol instantiation.  Note that any additional metadata will have to be justified in light of the privacy concerns raised above.  For more details on the impacts associated with segmenting user privacy, see draft-davidson-pp-architecture. Any metadata added to tokens will be considered either "public" or "private".  Public metadata corresponds to unmodifiable bits that a client can read.  Private metadata corresponds to unmodifiable private bits that should be obscured to the client. Note that the instantiation in voprf-protocol provides randomized redemption tokens with no additional metadata for an Issuer with a single key. </ins> 6. In this section, we show how to instantiate the functional API in pp-