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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-11-18. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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. > > > >