On 11/15/2014 10:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM, <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > I have also read the draft, and while I'm not entirely enthusiastic > about the > approach, it's quite clear this is going to happen regardless, and > having a > standardized mechanism for it strikes me as a far superior situation > than > having a bunch of nonstandard ways to do it deploy. > > I also find the objections to adopting it I've seen so far to be lacking > foundation. > > I therefore support adoption of this draft. > > > Having read the entire thread up to here, including the last three posts > that I didn't understand, I think the above nicely sums up my position > as well. Ship it. Mine too. It's not that the objections lack foundation -- though yes, so do lack it -- in fact some are probably correct, while others are irrelevant. Rather, it's that the mechanism is only offered as a standardized way for a browser to request a feature that already exists in a number of major sites. Since we like to claim we approve of standardizing existing practice, we should be cautious about demanding perfection from that practice before being willing to standardize it.. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net