IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Call For Adoption: draft-nottingham-safe-hint

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Tue, 22 July 2014 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jasnell@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961471A0658 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZkjldKT8PyeW for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 863201A0384 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id o6so493579oag.38 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tiGzLJNvf2S1+oNoRie3d9dx0j2x++/QVMWIH7PjjCQ=; b=nZDHWeIGQBGjzwW5j6zx8Adr2//z9DVpPOur6oxek7b5MiqXXpTgckrwYXiikSGip2 wwxgXxEIRpcODWXe0afQwACbpv61mnO3E6IxGAUhln9psys51xscWT2BfwNbgGkDA+pA hmCdqGWeHUPTHkQ8ZpoPDOGjmMjzv6QG5ho7bZSwvZ0N3tdR5JdF1YJTNqUsuh7TrPZX 9g8C0aBu8kCL1Hpj/4vNwNeV+t6Cdu96q3hrX63dwz+mZO5WTmS0i7EGMQb1gq7GAhSs sW/xb8rw6By0/2bjEVOft7sT36wBRXzlzm9FPr6HBwnf+rzBhypie0pt2EciuoYlC4Pr dXzQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.220.163 with SMTP id px3mr54376330oec.35.1406068188801; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.179.81 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.179.81 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <91D00BD5-CB7C-4F60-9497-60BD3B336A4A@mnot.net>
References: <CAL0qLwZtqm5apMhET+QSu2wsmLUWysXdsJzBsrU5oi4p0xsAEg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbe0cW-mjgSUAwtDDa1a8WP6aDwqF4r9bCdtfPonocbH6w@mail.gmail.com> <91D00BD5-CB7C-4F60-9497-60BD3B336A4A@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcWSjKLc35LUS-tF4Hh4vLDZ+8cGy5rF2FvMv0LZQ7P4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134d882ec729704fecfc210"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/cWVGtB6CPom9OvS-qnRGG1AgmHo
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call For Adoption: draft-nottingham-safe-hint
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:29:50 -0000

Mark: do you have details on where this has been implemented? Which
browsers? Are there server properties that support this yet?
On Jul 21, 2014 12:35 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> The overwhelming feedback I’ve had is that making this anything other than
> a binary flag is a non-starter — both because we’d have to define a
> universal taxonomy, and because we’d be exposing more than one bit of
> information for fingerprinting.
>
> Note that the draft currently allows sites to have finer gradations of
> preferences overlaid via their own mechanisms (e.g., cookies) if need be.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 21 Jul 2014, at 12:45 pm, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm generally +1 on the draft but do not currently have any specific
> > implementation plan (I just don't need it for my stuff). I will note,
> > however, that this draft makes the assumption that "safe mode" is a
> > binary on-off preference; however, both Google and Bing (as examples)
> > offer three choices: Off, Moderate and Strict. The Prefer header
> > allows for optional parameters and I think it would be worthwhile to
> > leverage that capability here.
> >
> >  Prefer: safe=moderate
> >  Prefer: safe=strict
> >  Prefer: safe=off
> >
> > Note, also, that additional parameters may be applied if additional
> > granularity is required. For instance:
> >
> >  Prefer: safe=strict; max=Y7   (prefer strict safe mode with a max
> > rating of Y7)
> >
> > - James
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
> > <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> draft-nottingham-safe-hint
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > apps-discuss mailing list
> > apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email