In message <B906EBA7-7BD3-45C0-8AAC-3C4B7E4F61AA(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>, Ted
Lemon writes:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb(_at_)ipv(_dot_)sx> wrote:
The evil bit is ridiculous because evil people have no incentive to set
it (thus nobody would ever look for it to be set). With the _nomap
suffix, the people who would need to set it have an incentive to do so,
and at least in certain cases, the entities that might consume it have
incentives to obey it as well.
Yup. Google certainly paid a high price recently for doing something
analogous to ignoring this suffix.
No Google paid a high price for storing more than what every box
uses when it displays a list of available WiFi networks. If they
had just done that I suspect that they would have been fine.
As for this proposal. I think it is a waste of time. If you need
this information then it needs to be built into the signaling
elsewhere and that is a job for IEEE not IETF.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org