In message <B906EBA7-7BD3-45C0-8AAC-3C4B7E4F61AA@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ted Lemon writes: > On Nov 26, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx