W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > April to June 2019

Re: Big PING Ideas

From: Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:25:32 -0700
Cc: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D8C99300-4EEF-4808-AD26-907446173A9A@brave.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Hi Mark,

Point taken!  Two follow up thoughts on this:

1) This isn’t _that_ different from the new semi-practice of gating things behind HTTPS (though I take your point that HTTP2 vs HTTP3 is _even_ harder for the developer to control than HTTP vs HTTPS)

2) Do you have ideas for other big-shiny new upcoming features we could use as a carrot to get people to opt into a more privacy-respecting feature set?

Pete

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 9:22 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 11 Apr 2019, at 4:36 am, Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 4) Add idea of feature policy for scripts, define default restrictive feature policy for scripts, make this the default for sites taking advantage of Y new nice feature (HTTP3 / QUIC, etc.)
> 
> I think you're going to see significant pushback from the community if you gate adoption of backwards-compatible protocols on things like this.
> 
> Typically, the protocol version in use is determined by operations folks, not the Web developer, and is often part of configuration of a third party (e.g., web hoster, CDN) that might not be under their full control. Making features unavailable based upon the underlying protocol is likely to cause a fair amount of chaos for them.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2019 15:26:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:49:37 UTC