- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:32:46 +0100
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
* Noah Mendelsohn wrote: >I disagree. The specification is defining the use of a name for purposes of >dereference. To conform to this specification, the agent must end-to-end >encrypt, and the spirit seems clear that this means not modify the content. > >As I noted, you can create useful agents of all sorts, some of which will >do useful things not conforming to this specification. I would argue that >your proposed crawler is an example. > >The specification defines a preferred way of dereferencing an https-scheme >URI and says that a conforming agent shall do this. The foundational >specfication of the web, RFC 3986 delegates to the specification we're >discussing. Thus, this appears to me to be the specified, conforming >behavior for Web user agents. The requirement you cited is a MUST-level requirement, it is not a pre- ference. You are arguing that such a crawler cannot be implemented with- out violating the protocol. I do not think that is a reasonable reading and certainly not what I had in mind when reviewing the document as part of my Last Call reviews. I also note that your argument would go both ways; if user agent -> user configured intermediary -> origin server violates the protocol, then it seems pretty clear that user agent -> CDN -> origin server would also violate the protocol, as that is not a true end-to-end path either. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2015 20:33:17 UTC