IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Tue, 28 October 2014 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.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 054361A8834 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 tNAzNaupSMsC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE391A8827 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id mc6so2604977lab.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hwFErWOD7z7ib6h4vkSj78Ht6iUZ4h3mIOWn775TtPU=; b=Aj3yM96ct4S75QDkyM+Q7R0wPzZSeMoqfCHcH0AZSTXt3AsniKkZ849oM0RxOwIdk7 6D/wTZ8/btptuKxh7W38kKru2203xSmLLwtbsE7CDNeTtQx/MjSQGEb+d9oYrCQKSxW5 XGYK2+NtDuvHNVi/eyyJ6LOas9fTky5bvZ9uc2aXnpAEuH4QOazyXIBGQYT0HXF11ECU bGqG581rehIfwndLGkxtBC01egWncl4VDyHVDc28bLQsfDtk83x626TqAN8NAw8MOe24 a9TPRXQfL+OUxptTP1FXwNANOBu1VKh9bclXKirhpY8gfd6f+OhVByuwHK3NuD5VGFAR 5jBQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.43.229 with SMTP id z5mr325285lal.86.1414462757358; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.208.135 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <544EFBC2.5070402@dcrocker.net>
References: <20141028004920.51745.qmail@ary.lan> <544EF0A4.7090609@gmail.com> <544EFBC2.5070402@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:19:17 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: LF3uYX79DwXuZRq8HqrjMW31C4U
Message-ID: <CACweHNBUsJxkey8HzR5wg7O3E1PEu0FwghMwxO2zQhF4+2yaOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c22216335391050672465c"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/f6kCnE0SHbhwrVMAEEwrEeebAl0
Cc: 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, 28 Oct 2014 02:19:21 -0000

On 28 October 2014 12:13, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 10/27/2014 6:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Yes, of course, but now they could automatically persuade a
> > browser itself that they conform to the IETF RFC7xxx standard
> > for safe browsing. Maybe the browser could display a little
> > "figleaf" icon just like the little "padlock" icon.
>
>
> "persuade a browser itself" has nothing to do with the current proposal,
> since the current proposal stops with making a request to the server.
>
> So there is no model for communicating back to the browser that content
> is safe or not, nevermind for communicating up to the user.
>
>
Actually, there's Preference-Applied. I don't recall seeing that forbidden
by this draft, and it's a "MAY send" in RFC 7240. That said, it would still
be a bit silly for a browser to add UI to advertise the presence of the
header.


-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email