IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 18 November 2014 05:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.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 C71A51AD0F0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:16:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 yuFq4cJzaZd9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C71281AD0D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.83] (unknown [118.209.199.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2982822E200; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:16:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:16:48 +1100
Message-Id: <F4F3F5AD-C50A-49F5-A3CD-8DE337D7EA36@mnot.net>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l6IGY80Uq_eXfUGC_0KylVjaPjw
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 05:17:00 -0000

Reminder: if you want an e-mail response to a message on this list, please CC: me.

Doug Barton said:

> Mark, can you respond to this point in more detail? Specifically, given 
> that there are already more-granular cookie-based solutions which are 
> nearly universally deployed, how much does preventing granularity in the 
> initial signal to the site help avoid this pitfall?

Because the hint is potentially sent on *all* requests, not just selected sites.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email