Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] The method of identifying "the same server" (#3155)

[MikkelFJ <[e-mail]>]

> The latter condition is where the various linkages come into play, but the point remains that the client is responsible for making an assessment. This text is about setting a common baseline for that.

I think it is a good thing to cover multiple networks because you can hide from external observers. But, if you are on a corporate or government MITM proxy matters are only going to get worse. That said, QUIC cannot possibly accommodate deliberately broken networks.

Also, clients have interests adverse to users as well - for example Google and Facebook need qualified advertising traffic and if QUIC tokens can slip under the Cookie radar, they will. I can't manage a Google cloud cluster without logging in to Youtube on an account that has never signed up for Youtube, and now I can't watch cat videos without getting cluster management commercials which really goes against the point of watching cat videos in the first place (or something roughly equivalent), so on.

So, there is tension in how much to leave for the client to decide vs actual user privacy.

-- 
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/3155#issuecomment-549719955