Re: F2F: Open Issues for the TPE Discussion on Tuesday

Hi Roy,

thanks for your input. I agree with your statement below. One questions:
- Do you have a suggestion how to distinguish between legacy user agents 
that "violate" the spec (partially because they pre-existed) and user 
agents that follow the spec?

IMHO nobody questions our agreement in ISSUE-4 (preferences MUST come 
from the actual users). The discussion that has started is one I would 
call a "quality of preference" discussion, i.e.,
under what circumstances do we deem a preference to be unbiased, 
explicit and informed. Our current spec allows for any preference 
expression, while the DAA proposal would like to
constrain the contexts under which such expressions of preference are 


On 06/05/2013 00:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The protocol is defined to be carrying a user preference.
> If the user has not set that preference, then the protocol is
> violated.  There is no wiggle room either way -- any setting
> of the preference must be a statement that the USER (not the
> installer, not the sysadmin, not some dude at the ISP who wants PR,
> and not some vendor engaged in a proxy battle) has performed
> some action that deliberately set that preference.

Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 08:22:15 UTC