+1. On Jul 15, 2014 7:05 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2014-07-15 15:42, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> ... >> >> Mark can of course do as he likes with his document, but I would >> not support adding this text to a WG document as I do not believe >> that it is accurate. >> >> It is quite common to have sensitive information in the path part of >> URLs (for instance, Amazon item numbers appear here), and in >> many cases, this is the only sensitive information required to >> reconstruct the user's browsing history. I don't consider this to >> be "very little actual privacy" loss. >> >> -Ekr >> > > Agreed. We shouldn't rely on a perceived difference that neither is backed > up by the specs, nor is there in practice. > > Best regards, Julian > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 14:28:42 UTC