IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 21 July 2014 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 266871A03D6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 ZZsAP-AYc_ZN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 081771A02FA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-b339.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [31.133.179.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1F1E22E2BA; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:49:08 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbdUTKkW=kL46CbAuE4w1bgFtyY9kdbEnD_2NVSqHj2CCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:49:03 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C595D6D5-8B01-4D25-8CF1-3DB5B4D08789@mnot.net>
References: <CAL0qLwZtqm5apMhET+QSu2wsmLUWysXdsJzBsrU5oi4p0xsAEg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbe0cW-mjgSUAwtDDa1a8WP6aDwqF4r9bCdtfPonocbH6w@mail.gmail.com> <91D00BD5-CB7C-4F60-9497-60BD3B336A4A@mnot.net> <CABP7RbdUTKkW=kL46CbAuE4w1bgFtyY9kdbEnD_2NVSqHj2CCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/yoMIbhTnPFgn4Gf_27Suze68nXA
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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:49:14 -0000

It sounds like you’re arguing for Prefer: nsfw… :)

Cheers,

On 21 Jul 2014, at 3:47 pm, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> At the very least, there needs to be a mechanism for explicitly
> requesting that safe browsing mode be turned off (e.g. Prefer:
> safe=off). Beyond that, as I said, I won't be implementing this
> myself, so if potential implementers are providing feedback that a
> simple boolean flag is good enough, then I certainly do not object.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email