Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-nottingham-safe-hint-10

The IESG <> Mon, 01 July 2019 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165C9120826; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 10:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <>, <>, <>
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-nottingham-safe-hint-10
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Cc: IETF-Announce <>, The IESG <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 10:39:12 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:39:12 -0000

The IESG has completed a review of draft-nottingham-safe-hint-10 consistent
with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The "safe" HTTP Preference'
<draft-nottingham-safe-hint-10.txt> as an Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
httpbis , but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

The IESG would like the following IESG note added to the document:


Given the current requirements for registering HTTP preferences [RFC7420], the
relationship between this document and those registry requirements is unclear.
The document claims that its purpose is to specify a common understanding of
how the "safe" HTTP preference operates, but this is not achieved since there
is no semantic defined for "safe." The registration policy for the HTTP
preferences registry is Specification Required, so an RFC is not necessary in
order to simply register this preference.

This mechanism was presented for publication as an IETF Proposed Standard, but
was not approved for publication by the IESG. Concerns raised by the IESG
remain valid. Some of these concerns are addressed or discussed in the
document, but others are not, such as how the use of this preference may
incentivize increased censorship and/or targeting of minors.


The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary