IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 27 October 2014 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 CB3141A876C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.862
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 hJ8ajVJpdnnq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE9241A88A7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 66763 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2014 17:58:19 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 27 Oct 2014 17:58:19 -0000
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:57:57 -0000
Message-ID: <20141027175757.50843.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <544DBB81.5080700@bogus.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/u2ID0ThX3_ck-qlJc2vMPA7YdXI
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: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:58:29 -0000

>As it is the meaning of a safe hint is to be intuited by the recipient.

Yes.  That's not a bug.

I don't understand the point of hypothetical arguments about whether a
safe flag might be useful.  We already know the answer: Many of the
largest web services in the world already have one.  Youtube puts
theirs right on the home page.

All this does is to provide a consistent interface to the existing
feature, and some operational flexibility to environments like schools
and corporate networks where the person sitting at the browser isn't
the one who sets the content policy.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email