Re: Are we trying to build a compliance system on poorly-defined core concepts?

Ok, I'm not meaning to challenge HTTP 1.1, but if an intermediary acts as an HTTP client on behalf of the user, e.g. an anomymizing proxy or other proxy/gateway which provides value-added services to the user (e.g. Opera mini server or WAP gateway/proxy), I think it can serve similar objectives as other "agents", e.g. HTTP client functionality, Web content processing, etc. My goal here is again not to challenge the definition of user agent but to clarify that what we mean by user agent in the TPE (at least for expression of user tracking preference via a DNT header) can extend to network-based software components that act on behalf of the user. At the least, we need to ensure that there is no language in the TPE or TCS that would forbid this valid implementation approach.

Bryan Sullivan

On Oct 5, 2012, at 1:19 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <> wrote:

On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:

> To be clear, I am proposing three new issues be raised and I will propose
> text for:
> 1) Clarify that multiple users may use a specific device/user-agent
> 2) Address TPE changes to refect multi-user/shared device use cases
> 3) Update user agent definition to include proxy user agents

To be clear, the latter will not be accepted.  DNT depends on HTTP,
and a proxy is never a user agent.  It is a proxy.  So if you need
some requirements changed, then suggest ways in which they can be
phrased as "user agent or proxy" rather than try to change UA to
include proxy.


Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 14:01:37 UTC