I appreciate that!
> From what I can see, the webpage needs to return the token to the server before it decides to respond [1]. True that proposal doesn't say if the server should respond or not. But the mere possibility that the server can deny a response based on the token (or its absence) means that it will be used. How is this not DRM? And how is this not dangerous to the open web?
This could definitely be risky for the open web, and that's an argument to put forward [1]. In my book this is not a blocker for being able to discuss any of this. (but could be a blocker for shipping this proposal without proper mitigation)
At the same time, I perceive DRM as a way to control access and ability to copy copyrighted material. I couldn't find anything in this proposal that enabled any of that.
[1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_...
> At the same time, I perceive DRM as a way to control access and ability to copy copyrighted material.
That is merely the stated objective of DRM. However, it's well known and accepted that DRM schemes do the following as well:
1. Restrict where (device or application) the user can consume the content.
2. Restrict how long the user can consume the content.
Despite denials, I'm yet to see DRM schemes that don't do these as well. And everyone's concern regarding WEI is regarding point 1 and possibly point 2 as well. So, saying that WEI isn't DRM scheme is based on a narrow interpretation rather than a practical one.
Arguably, any ability to deny particular user agents is discrimination. Doing that in a cryptographically verifiable way is DRM or at least a primitive which can be used to build DRM.
> This could definitely be risky for the open web
Then it should not be done.
> At the same time, I perceive DRM as a way to control access and ability to copy copyrighted material. I couldn't find anything in this proposal that enabled any of that.
Whether the proposal specifically mentions copyrights or DRM is immaterial; I don't even know why you would make this point.
> In my book this is not a blocker for being able to discuss any of this
First of all, respectfully, "your book" is not relevant; you are acting in your capacity as a chair, are you not? Second of all, yes, if something is morally abhorrent, it is not even worth discussion. You are still not understanding why people are reacting this way. Please, again, I implore you to reconsider your interpretation of these responses; people are trying to tell you that this proposal is SO dangerous, and SO bad, that it should be deleted from existence and never discussed again.