IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 16 November 2014 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090641A1AA8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:35:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.363
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 4pKVRPphi805 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 816B21A19E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 8438 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2014 19:35:51 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 16 Nov 2014 19:35:51 -0000
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:35:29 -0000
Message-ID: <20141116193529.14072.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <a271429152ce4c97b48aed93a658b854@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AifNHJk-in5vGHc6-PTfNS_hlYc
Cc: huitema@microsoft.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 19:35:54 -0000

>Sites can easily adapt their services to the needs and desires of their users. They
>can do it today using site specific settings. I am pretty sure that these settings
>require more than just one bit, ...

Here's a concrete suggestion: the Bing search engine and IE browser
support this safe flag right now.  Could you talk to the people
responsible for them and ask whether they considered more fine grained
schemes such as PICS, and why they implemented a single bit instead?

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email