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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 16 November 2014 05:07 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 2E8291A8978 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:07:02 -0800 (PST)
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_20=-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 gFXL6qYAKPFl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:06:59 -0800 (PST)
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 550981A8977 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sAG56tR8000859 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:06:58 -0800
Message-ID: <546830E3.5090800@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:06:43 -0800
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@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> <028201cfef81$44eaec60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <01PE4IK2ZVO20028JO@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwbtCFefW82-676CsPuS7NX-Q6dE_=_qXAB7-T419VGzzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbtCFefW82-676CsPuS7NX-Q6dE_=_qXAB7-T419VGzzA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kBaaw8tp7FUTYhwp11GA-FxzueE
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: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 05:07:03 -0000

On 11/15/2014 10:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM, <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
> <mailto:ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I have also read the draft, and while I'm not entirely enthusiastic
>     about the
>     approach, it's quite clear this is going to happen regardless, and
>     having a
>     standardized mechanism for it strikes me as a far superior situation
>     than
>     having a bunch of nonstandard ways to do it deploy.
> 
>     I also find the objections to adopting it I've seen so far to be lacking
>     foundation.
> 
>     I therefore support adoption of this draft.
> 
> 
> Having read the entire thread up to here, including the last three posts
> that I didn't understand, I think the above nicely sums up my position
> as well.  Ship it.


Mine too.

It's not that the objections lack foundation -- though yes, so do lack
it -- in fact some are probably correct, while others are irrelevant.

Rather, it's that the mechanism is only offered as a standardized way
for a browser to request a feature that already exists in a number of
major sites.

Since we like to claim we approve of standardizing existing practice, we
should be cautious about demanding perfection from that practice before
being willing to standardize it..

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net