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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/pWB0uT3skZdxkjlOOjrFBGCeqBw>


----==_mimepart_5e42c6da74965_5b4c3f98f70cd9681477d
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
----==_mimepart_5e42c6da74965_5b4c3f98f70cd9681477d
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:05 AM D. Ebdrup &lt;notifications@github.com&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:31 AM D. Ebdrup *@*.***&gt; wrote: Thanks for<br>
&gt; pointing me here, Martin. :) Cooperation, to me and seemingly according to<br>
&gt; the second definition of Merrian-Webster<br>
&gt; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cooperation, seems to imply<br>
&gt; that even just two parties (one first-party and one third-party, for<br>
&gt; example) are cooperating on something, especially considering the example<br>
&gt; underneath given involves trade and economy.<br>
&gt; I agree with your definition, but I don&#39;t understand your point.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; My point in the initial email to Martin was that the language seems to<br>
&gt; provide for companies to share Connection ID data, or data derived from it,<br>
&gt; with third parties - so long as the companies have legal contracts defining<br>
&gt; that they are cooperating.<br>
&gt;<br>
Yes, or without contracts for that matter. The point of &quot;cooperating&quot; is<br>
not to restrict commercial agreements but to technically define the privacy<br>
properties we expect CID construction to provide.<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; That doesn&#39;t seem, to me at least, to be a good idea when a bit of more<br>
&gt; precise use of language (such as the regular expression above by Martin,<br>
&gt; with a modification to allow for load-balancers, as rightly pointed out)<br>
&gt; could very easily nip it in the butt, as it were. :<br>
&gt;<br>
I&#39;m not particularly a huge fan of tracking either, but that&#39;s not the<br>
issue here. We&#39;re not the protocol police and this text is not about<br>
setting business policy. It&#39;s a technical requirement to forbid designs<br>
which would be insecure.<br>


<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448?email_source=notifications&amp;email_token=AFTOJK4FK6SMZBQ5FY2CRS3RCK7FVA5CNFSM4KSWA2GKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELM2HOA#issuecomment-584688568">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFTOJK6EA3YA3ROQAECPTP3RCK7FVANCNFSM4KSWA2GA">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AFTOJK7GHOEWPDUPVS7E5OLRCK7FVA5CNFSM4KSWA2GKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELM2HOA.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJK4FK6SMZBQ5FY2CRS3RCK7FVA5CNFSM4KSWA2GKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELM2HOA#issuecomment-584688568",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3448?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJK4FK6SMZBQ5FY2CRS3RCK7FVA5CNFSM4KSWA2GKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELM2HOA#issuecomment-584688568",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>
----==_mimepart_5e42c6da74965_5b4c3f98f70cd9681477d--