I think doing this is a bad idea and commented on that before
on apps-discuss. [1] (Start of that mega-thread is [2])
I think all the same objections apply other than the one that
called for the discussion to be had here rather than in appsawg.
(And thanks Barry for doing that.)
S.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg12628.html
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg12512.html
On 21/10/14 22:33, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The "safe" HTTP Preference'
<draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-11-18. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This specification defines a "safe" preference for HTTP requests,
expressing a desire to avoid "objectionable" content.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-safe-hint/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-safe-hint/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.