ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-06.txt> (Forwarded HTTP Extension) to Proposed Standard

2012-07-11 09:42:18
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:32:08 -0400
Alissa Cooper <acooper(_at_)cdt(_dot_)org> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Andreas Petersson wrote:
The first half of the statement is basically a refinement of the previous 
sentence in the section ("The Forwarded HTTP header field, by design, 
exposes information that some users consider privacy sensitive"), so I 
don't see what is lost by eliminating it.

See my answer to SM. I think it better explains that the expectations
of the end user are important to consider, even if these expectations
are wrong.

Right, I'm not saying that user expectations are unimportant. I think 
characterizing their role accurately should be the goal. If there is a desire 
to leave this in, I would suggest something more along the lines of:

Proxies using this extension will preserve the information of a direct 
connection. In some cases, the user's and/or deployer's knowledge or 
expectation that this will occur can help to mitigate the associated privacy 
impact.

Off-list discussion with Alissa resulted in this suggestion:

"Proxies using this extension will preserve the information of a direct
connection. This has an end-user privacy impact regardless of whether
the end-user or deployer knows or expects that this is the case."


Cheers,
 Andreas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>