See also https://privacypass.github.io/, which is the original form of the framework. I don't particularly have good impression with it; it usually get promoted when I have to solve CAPTCHA on websites using Cloudflare, and it makes me wonder why I have to install extension to bypass CAPTCHA instead of improving their traffic detection scheme.

Interestingly, draft authors include members from Google, Fastly, Apple, Cloudflare... so this could have legs.

I question any "privacy" drafts authored by companies who's business consists of or is related to essentially violating the privacy of their users.

As you should! Luckily we don't have to rely on their salespeople or marketing, since we have a technical draft we can read and evaluate.

Not defending the mentioned companies here, but comments like these add no value. What specifically about the IETF draft advances the business of violating user privacy? Would it be better for users if Google, Fastly, Apple and Cloudflare abstained from standardization processes?

It could have legs without them, it just wouldn't have built-in clout that an appeal to authority affords.

Well, it needs browser support and server support... something like this needs adoption by major players before it's realistically useful in real world... Nothing to do with appeal to authority.

This is really cool stuff. Does anyone have a good comparison between Privacy Pass and Anon-Pass (https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/317.pdf)? Is one better for subscriptions than the other?

Not sure! I don’t see this paper in the References section of the draft though - it’s possible the authors are not aware of it!

You could reach out and share it with them, and see what they say?