IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 27 October 2014 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 2D3191A6FA8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 74r9Td45Zo42 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AEC61A6EEC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-50-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9RNDlT5076420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:13:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-50-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.141] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <544ECD1A.4010807@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:13:47 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D17FE653-87F8-41DE-B215-57AA907DF658@vpnc.org>
References: <20141027175757.50843.qmail@ary.lan> <544ECD1A.4010807@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OtcIcjZMyCYnIPVrpUpVGOw1W4I
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:13:59 -0000

On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/10/2014 06:57, John Levine wrote:
>>> As it is the meaning of a safe hint is to be intuited by the recipient.
>> 
>> Yes.  That's not a bug.
>> 
>> I don't understand the point of hypothetical arguments about whether a
>> safe flag might be useful.  We already know the answer: Many of the
>> largest web services in the world already have one.  Youtube puts
>> theirs right on the home page.
> 
> John, I don't think the argument is about whether it will work technically
> or whether it will be used. The argument is about whether this is something
> that the IETF should endorse as a Proposed Standard, which implies that
> we think it will be effective.

Just to be clear: are you saying that you believe that those large web properties already doing this has *not* been effective? I have to believe that they have spent more time than us measuring that, and that they came to the conclusion that it was continuing to be effective.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email