Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/27/2014 6:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Yes, of course, but now they could automatically persuade a
> browser itself that they conform to the IETF RFC7xxx standard
> for safe browsing. Maybe the browser could display a little
> "figleaf" icon just like the little "padlock" icon.


"persuade a browser itself" has nothing to do with the current proposal,
since the current proposal stops with making a request to the server.

So there is no model for communicating back to the browser that content
is safe or not, nevermind for communicating up to the user.

Hence this concern is another case of extrapolating far beyond the
current specification, constructing a strawman, and then using it to
argue against the actual proposal.

It would be particularly foolish for a browser to attach a
safety-related icon when there is no safe 'mode' acknowledged by the
server.  And it would be foolish to pursue such an acknowledgement for
the current proposal, since it is seeking a far simpler and more narrow
scope.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]