Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] "External observers" is undefined (#3448)

"D. Ebdrup" <notifications@github.com> Tue, 11 February 2020 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEAF12013C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:05:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W6yA8g2d9Fg4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-19.smtp.github.com (out-19.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07E79120033 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-a6a2749.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.62]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2ECC521E30 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:05:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1581433515; bh=TCjcP0lFP/JwCW9/qzTfvZq32UF4aSsc9+jilT9WPOM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=2VMnA423cutTiEkAZ6H6UGPiLXiOYPu7BQLLK5Fm+NsSvOXs4ouv4yoHQTgmFRlVL DZtZJ7J6sNioHsR8tNHgeMe2KtSHPbHH627aytjpIhGFNKWxNtowG3GUOpUrJzKjHI GIvVUiEARrY4wpy1r4Gn8K/8NxrXWqANfCd1rKAI=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:05:15 -0800
From: "D. Ebdrup" <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZU7NHKDLWCB7KLN7F4J72SXEVBNHHCDDCNZQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448/584679393@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] "External observers" is undefined (#3448)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e42c2aba3b7b_620d3fe3ff6cd9641506bf"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: debdrup
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/IO2AjGfl5S2O8oaSP2uUCWwn43E>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:05:18 -0000

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:31 AM D. Ebdrup ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for pointing me here, Martin. :) Cooperation, to me and seemingly according to the second definition of Merrian-Webster <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cooperation>, seems to imply that even just two parties (one first-party and one third-party, for example) are cooperating on something, especially considering the example underneath given involves trade and economy.
> I agree with your definition, but I don't understand your point.

My point in the initial email to Martin was that the language seems to provide for companies to share Connection ID data, or data derived from it, with third parties -  so long as the companies have legal contracts defining that they are cooperating. That doesn't seem, to me at least, to be a good idea when a bit of more precise use of language (such as the regular expression above by Martin, with a modification to allow for load-balancers, as rightly pointed out) could very easily nip it in the butt, as it were. :)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448#issuecomment-584679393