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/