On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Andreas Petersson wrote: >> The first half of the statement is basically a refinement of the previous >> sentence in the section ("The Forwarded HTTP header field, by design, >> exposes information that some users consider privacy sensitive"), so I don't >> see what is lost by eliminating it. > > See my answer to SM. I think it better explains that the expectations > of the end user are important to consider, even if these expectations > are wrong.
Right, I'm not saying that user expectations are unimportant. I think characterizing their role accurately should be the goal. If there is a desire to leave this in, I would suggest something more along the lines of: Proxies using this extension will preserve the information of a direct connection. In some cases, the user's and/or deployer's knowledge or expectation that this will occur can help to mitigate the associated privacy impact. > > I don't think that text will have much impact on how the header field > is used in practice though, or any technical impact, so removing it is > fine with me. Even if that's the case having accurate documentation of the privacy implications can't hurt. Alissa > > It would be interesting to hear what Stephen Farrell thinks about it, > since he wrote that text. > > > Cheers, > Andreas