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

ekr <notifications@github.com> Tue, 11 February 2020 15:23 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 14D82120168 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:23:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 FMoHmSc_63E6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 879C6120164 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f62aa54.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83586C60350 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:23:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1581434586; bh=X3rpiapn7PtXCnBcZXoPTpFleySfFa5cRvYM2DzEnr8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=shGcHyDMX6u7c6MmoDGPeLfwN1Tkkq6YwsYvh1dW7NpoR4k0gBjpWOUPvCe/IplwD sc5/8LBM5ilrAZfuQDHeGpaWAsXm/xFoCBa0aw/Vs3dj0uJjBl+/CMWxh2rUK8494M ROaT/0sPjCNpziXekOdtcw1hER2TWczFK3Ob466g=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:23:06 -0800
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5XE22UDQ4YXBEZECF4J74VVEVBNHHCDDCNZQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448/584688568@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_5e42c6da74965_5b4c3f98f70cd9681477d"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/pWB0uT3skZdxkjlOOjrFBGCeqBw>
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 15:23:09 -0000

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:05 AM D. Ebdrup <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
Yes, or without contracts for that matter. The point of "cooperating" is
not to restrict commercial agreements but to technically define the privacy
properties we expect CID construction to provide.


> 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. :
>
I'm not particularly a huge fan of tracking either, but that's not the
issue here. We're not the protocol police and this text is not about
setting business policy. It's a technical requirement to forbid designs
which would be insecure.


-- 
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-584688568