On 10/21/14 2:33 PM, 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. I think this a bad idea. A safe hint could have a semantic meaning if it were to express what the user meant by safe. Were that the case it would in many respects be privacy revealing (I am child, I am browsing from a computer in a US federal office building, I am a resident of an Amana colony, a kibbutz, or the temple of Set) and therefore only appropriate between parties with a pre-existing or at a minimum consent based relationship. As it is the meaning of a safe hint is to be intuited by the recipient. I send you the request you send me the bits, if I need to run software that applies meaning and context to those bits and chooses therefore to fail to serve them that's my business. joel > 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. > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature