ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2014-10-23 19:27:48
On 24 Oct 2014, at 11:04 am, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot(_at_)mnot(_dot_)net> 
wrote:
Donald Eastlake said:

I believe it has many of the problems discussed in RFC 3675.

Could you please be more specific? The analogy is not obvious, and that's a 
big RFC.

Consider the analogy between one bit of "safeness" and one top level
domain name for "adult" material.

RFC3675 walks through the impacts of of using a particular type of flag in a 
few different situations. It doesn't follow that all flags are bad in all 
situations; the problems listed in that draft don't necessarily apply to the 
safe preference, because it's designed and deployed in a way that's very 
different than a DNS label.

To put it another way - a common judgement in engineering is that many things 
are "0, 1 or many." Are you suggesting we rule out all "1" cases?

If not, please spell out the analogy, because I'm not following.

Also, I note that in 4.3 you hold up PICS labels as an exemplar;

This sort  of technology is really the only reasonable way to make
categorizations or labelings of material available in a diverse and
dynamic world.

I disagree, given that PICS labels have absolutely failed to get any serious 
traction in the real world over the past 18+ years.

P3P did something similar (I was involved there), and similarly didn't get 
anywhere (except annoying some Web site operators).

Cheers,



--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>