Tuesday, Dec 1, 2015 7:27 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >> Sure, but in this case wouldn't deferring to the end systems> argue in favor >> of allowing end systems to make the decision as> to whether their private >> information should be exposed? > > As I see it, that's not the question here. The question is: Should there be > an RFC that can be used/misused to apply pressure regarding trace fields etc?
Yes, I agree that this is what we are discussing. I think it's pretty clear that for Received header fields that refer to the IP address of the end-user, the answer is "yes, there should be such an RFC." I haven't heard anyone seriously propose that this is not true, although I'd be interested to hear such an argument! -- Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/[email protected]
pgpnrcZbFcO15.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Shutup mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup
