IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 14 May 2012 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F36221F8928 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SxoFrTdNAjoC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA6C21F8923 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4EN97jt025939; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120514155407.099847c8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:07:31 -0700
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FB18597.1020703@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502074325.0ababa28@elandnews.com> <4FAFA51F.4040508@sbin.se> <6.2.5.6.2.20120513074613.092bab70@resistor.net> <4FB0D246.4020608@cs.tcd.ie> <20120514122954.242cb1be@hetzer> <4FB0E828.9040405@cs.tcd.ie> <20120514134501.067cbd96@hetzer> <4FB18597.1020703@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:09:15 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 15:22 14-05-2012, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>IMO, if we standardise that kind of middlebox feature
>then there's an onus on us to think about how it might
>affect the endpoints, one of which in this case has
>a warm body attached often enough to count.  (I think
>there was an IAB RFC saying that some time back, can't
>recall the number now though, and a quick look didn't
>find it sorry.)

It's related to the OPES work (RFC 3238).  That RFC introduced the 
notion of one-party consent.  Given existing legislation, e.g. EU 
directive about privacy, this is not simply a matter of adding a header.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email