Hi John, Wearing no hats
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, 12:23 Border, John, <John.Border= [email protected]> wrote: > My initial reaction at the meeting was privacy leak and I was expecting > the hard negative feedback that happened. In theory, using a path aware > application implies consent of the user to trade some privacy for some > other benefit. In practice, though, the user is probably not aware of what > the application is doing. > > Thinking about it some more, though,… > > The QUIC working group is very focused on individual users. But, there > are other uses of the Internet. A business might very well both be aware > of and want the trade for path optimization re cost, latency, etc. In > fact, the specific application might have been selected for that reason. I > don’t know that the specific mechanism in the document is the right one. > (It might or might not be.) I just wanted to point out there are use cases > where privacy might matter less than other considerations. > The focus on end users is consistent with RFC 8890 [1], produced by the IAB. Of particular interest to this thread may be section 4.3 and 4.4, which gives treatment to tussle between needs of stakeholders and handling conflict. There are links to various other documents there that folks may find informative. Cheers Lucas [1] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8890
