IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 D3C831A8835 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 0tZMLVDZzzLQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 316031A882B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id kq14so4147549pab.24 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ACMGjhqAGUJ59ToqfQCUon1KGZY+e3hOpJfxFKA1lt4=; b=SuYl43Gzffz21TNiAZ5vZ8nNW/90YbVRjg3depgdKjl6LBvEl7rOkxt3dyaqQVjep0 ITBEeML70mzqJxmTGdwdzbM4btb70Duwnd79uG6cO7PQXRO0bcU9RKDJvV9dEWhHul8F Yis7OpWIedEi3I7kPwCMOkMGIA+2Fy2tAEjUGFRb7YYKWC71jt/arac26HnsXVwcuSts 9dFzHs1McmoF3Oe4RqoHv47KmJr7coas9wYjERUtTdDobum4neIx0+WyMTpkppck49Yc WWjqxAvD5ZA+Wl5dxX4HxL+zJrliqTNsql2/XISQRYFoom8sw8/NKDilZsJHclBszFQM DPKg==
X-Received: by 10.66.118.136 with SMTP id km8mr34205pab.100.1414459559855; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (142.193.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.193.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fn2sm14089pdb.75.2014.10.27.18.25.56 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <544EF0A4.7090609@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:25:56 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
References: <20141028004920.51745.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20141028004920.51745.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hdFyiIxtV5g2j6LeXiHZ8bCN3Fo
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 01:26:02 -0000

On 28/10/2014 13:49, John Levine wrote:
>> No. I mean that a badly motivated web site can pretend to offer safe material
>> using this but actually offer objectionable material (for whatever definition
>> of safe or objectionable you care to adopt). For example a site being used
>> to "groom" innocent victims could pretend that all its content was safe.
>> This would actually make the site much more dangerous than before, because
>> of the illusion of safety.
> 
> How does this differ from the current situtation?  Any site can show
> logos that say "100% family friendly", and have a safe mode flag you
> can toggle in your browser.

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.

I'm going to shut up now because I've made my point as clearly
as I can.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email