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> Mon, 27 October 2014 22:54 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 7A7011A1B6C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:54:52 -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 C-_Z3olwSbrv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF6E81A01FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r10so6526470pdi.30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:54:20 -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=VOvxKKhMGwXj5agfYMV8xev0/ShTbZkLPRcghnxISa4=; b=eI4RSZoT3VUDOEFkJGeD6MUXbZOjWr5MN0aDhC5RiM/oV8/JdZKi+Ed2k+Zqlfkb// 26beil/fkR5n1EVEHrIxF9A1XfjAaJkBpvdtQXS/0GAU0Wku8IMzqsPKVellcizI5oaR i1srvHImm1oxkUpexG7fbWP3NjuCigD/u5IHDxzVUg128RSZK+Csla3CEPI+bx27hGem 9QL/fhcI+Jw/hmQomA1dZm4+uu+NqWt2mwPJAWgowt0XSO8vjvVe8g/igvFGX4XZIm1q TuEUrHqOS1+dkQVZmH7msvgfcc6BaMCjmAWBs//wKyNyUrJ/5bI80WvGducq04LaFZ7O iojw==
X-Received: by 10.70.43.46 with SMTP id t14mr27298988pdl.57.1414450460575; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:54:20 -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 lr4sm11869706pab.42.2014.10.27.15.54.17 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <544ECD1A.4010807@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:54:18 +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: <20141027175757.50843.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20141027175757.50843.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/waW1BoKhvdAoK296pV6MWYx2Cto
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: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:54:54 -0000

On 28/10/2014 06:57, John Levine wrote:
>> 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.

John, I don't think the argument is about whether it will work technically
or whether it will be used. The argument is about whether this is something
that the IETF should endorse as a Proposed Standard, which implies that
we think it will be effective.

I would have no objection to this being published as an Informational RFC,
to document existing practice. But to be completely clear, I was *not* being
sarcastic when I compared it to RFC 3514, because its intended semantics can
be ignored by any web site operator that chooses to do so.

   Brian

> 
> 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