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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 24 October 2014 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 C7ABC1A8A82 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 oidGP8oGn8pS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA8421A8ABC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.103] (c-24-147-69-77.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.147.69.77]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9OC7QZr018617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:07:30 -0700
Message-ID: <544A40F7.7090500@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:07:19 -0400
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
References: <20141023140635.10188.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20141023140635.10188.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Gd2YdfjYDLRbSDh-z0BBkHfLF50
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:07:44 -0000

On 10/23/2014 10:06 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>   This specification defines a "safe" preference for HTTP requests,
>>   expressing a desire to avoid "objectionable" content.
> 
> I have read this draft and support its adoption.
> 
> It describes a very simple http option that is already adopted by
> several widely used browsers and several popular web sites.  It would
> be nice to document it on the standards track so other browsers and
> web sites that implement it (which they will) do so in a compatible way.


+1

The arguments against this specification seem wholly to rely on pure
speculation, biased in one direction and with no special foundation to
justify the speculation. So, one could, just as easily, assert
/favorable/ speculation and claim that that demands publication.
Neither line of fantasy is very helpful to a standards process.

Worse, the speculation completely ignores that this is providing a
support mechanism for an existing capability.

I thought the IETF considered it useful to document existing practice.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net