- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:12:27 +1100
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Chris Bentzel <chris@bentzel.net>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
SGTM.
> On 16 Jan 2016, at 8:19 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 2016-01-16 02:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> Does that suggest an "unless" or a rewrite to something like:
>>
>> Clients that wish to prevent requests from being correlated (such as
>> those that offer modes aimed at providing improved privacy) SHOULD NOT
>> use alternative services for multiple requests that would not
>> otherwise be allowed to be correlated.
>> ...
>
>
> I note that this proposal was triggered by a discussion about text that's not in the current spec. Anyway, is this supposed to go into 9.4 ("Tracking Clients Using Alternative Services", <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10.html#tracking>), replacing the current statement:
>
> "Clients concerned by the additional fingerprinting can choose to ignore alternative service advertisements."
>
> ?
>
> In which case I'd avoid the normative SHOULD NOT that is conditional on a wish :-). Such as:
>
> "Clients that wish to prevent requests from being correlated (such as
> those that offer modes aimed at providing improved privacy) can decide not to use alternative services for multiple requests that would not
> otherwise be allowed to be correlated."
>
> Best regards, Julian
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 January 2016 04:13:02 UTC