IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 18 November 2014 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 634491A8773 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:06:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 JGAHAI2-EQFl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:06:54 -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 ADF341A8771 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 78890 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2014 20:06:52 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=13429.546ba6dc.k1411; bh=IRpKIuWtWwla6TTN/dL4v8FegBY14/l2oRgXtX5ztlU=; b=xMSLt18V2cNbEA+A1tkHIHRzTkbHSlda/c2RjnfgDmtyQRvizbLGOIhk61SQVSymHQfG5CXRPblQedQctUadMIKK3NDfX9DvTYCBdFJ1kPeddIsRsKM3IrrjzyvYrFoBzzeMjiLFXw7IyPgDzJSjIY8Y9VOr99mm01YkhBqNkWomfhxJbUxSFMN1TiGofz3Bu0sJkpdHKCKdsq11UA0fOBj7QR3aiDf0Iz5fpUyLmyju5PP3b6Ql9BIHI5CpKlQC
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=13429.546ba6dc.k1411; bh=IRpKIuWtWwla6TTN/dL4v8FegBY14/l2oRgXtX5ztlU=; b=VINo3Eaz7QwMYirPNrFSI+emmZFCiRgYVNV911QLlM5rEPiFCuU+Vi9p7pnTc0OwhJyfABo46SPLNn8vq/UuEqta2ALM8Xt1G6y48GkIz4DZXDXN/I34RRWsVdB8kmYgcKtEL7dG7WwePlWhw54k9Auo1ms/HnfggWkUdYcRXkjUyaj31OKfw8AUKrUY99iZB4Bn5l0Dsva9Sc/YADX3oJceZo4hcNf8pBaPltOm+uwobtCNe0RzR46raEyxY3Pc
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 18 Nov 2014 20:06:52 -0000
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:06:51 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1411181451530.2903@ary.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <546B7D53.9040801@cdt.org>
References: <20141114213158.10996.qmail@ary.lan> <546B7D53.9040801@cdt.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/exeDiQhodXvsE7OgLCxnQBBzVKY
Cc: IETF general list <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: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:06:57 -0000

> Part of the argument we are making (sorry if it was unclear) and that
> Yoav has spent a few messages on this thread trying to get across is
> that it's critical that there be a common understanding of what "safe"
> means for this to be useful to parents, guardians, or other folks that
> may want to interact with the internet in a "safe" manner. Each of the
> sites that have implemented this have different interpretations ...

  ... which people use all the time right now.

The claim that a safe flag is unusable unless we do X, Y, and Z makes no 
sense.  People use single bit safe flags now all over the place, and I 
see no evidence that anyone (outside this uniquely nerdy group) carefully 
scrutinizes the semantics of a site's safe flag before they turn it on.

I have a smidgin of sympathy for the argument that the flag makes it 
easier to profile people, but one more bit is swamped in the flood of 
other settings and cookies that exist now.

We're engineers, not poets.  We standardize stuff that is real, not that 
might hypothetically exist in some unlikely to exist version of the 
universe.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email