Hilarie,
The current consideration draft confuses "privacy" and "undetected
modification" and "encryption".
Could you please work with Abbie and Alex and provide text for the
draft that would help clarifying and resolving the confusion you
describe? Thanks!
The current draft characterizes processor identification at content
provider sites as "irrational", which is probably overstating the
issue. It is also argues that end users cannot identify themselves
usefully to a content provider's internal processors. Although I don't
disagree that this might be true in some implementations, it isn't
clear that it is impossible in practice. I think that overall the
viewpoint should clearly distinguish between protocol feasibility
and impact on content provider practices.
Agreed, should be reflected in the document.
But even if something is feasible, we need to investigate whether it
makes sense in practice and respective protocl mechanisms should be
included in the specification. (Note: this is intended to encourage
general questions, rather than giving a statement on this specific issue).
-Markus