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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> draft-nottingham-safe-hint
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/