IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Fri, 24 October 2014 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 23C441A9146 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 glHTnmAyyLn9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FED1A914B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PE4LGUKN4W002WRG@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PE3G6YIHXS0028JO@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01PE4LGSMKFY0028JO@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:20:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:54:19 -0700 (PDT)" <01PE4IK2ZVO20028JO@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20141023140635.10188.qmail@ary.lan> <028201cfef81$44eaec60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <01PE4IK2ZVO20028JO@mauve.mrochek.com>
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
X-Comment: Internal;probe=process-dkim-sign
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o_hka8ws9POjI1TrJLFHFPijOOI
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, 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: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:27:04 -0000

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
> > To: <ietf@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:06 PM
> > > >   This specification defines a "safe" preference for HTTP requests,
> > > >   expressing a desire to avoid "objectionable" content.
> > >
> > > I have read this draft and support its adoption.

> > Me too.  It seems a straightforward step in the right direction for the
> > Internet at large.   It is a small step but then taking small steps in
> > the right direction is something that the IETF does rather well.

> 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.

Small point of clarification: By "approach" I meant the underlying apporach of
having a safe mode, not the mechanism defined by the draft to control it. Poor
word choice on my part; sorry.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email