> On 24 Oct 2014, at 11:04 am, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> 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/