On 16/11/14 18:58, Christian Huitema wrote: > > >> 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. > > And that's precisely the problem. > > Sites can easily adapt their services to the needs and desires of > their users. They can do it today using site specific settings. I am > pretty sure that these settings require more than just one bit, so we > have to assume that sites will still need these settings tomorrow > even if that safe bit proposal was adopted. There is thus not much > engineering benefit. In fact there is probably a cost, with settings > coming from two channels instead of only one. > > By creating a standard, we would be creating a social norm. It would > not take long for regulators to mandate "safe" behavior for web > sites, or to enforce the safe bit in various kinds of "great > firewalls." It will all be in the name of protecting the children, > but we all know that the real target will be dissent and free speech. > By offering this setting as a standard, the IETF would become an > accomplice of repressive regimes and other religious dictarures. > > Some features do not need to be standardized. I agree with Christian. Should this end up being published (which I'd prefer not see happen as stated before) then I think at minimum there needs to be reasonable recognition in the text of the issues identified during the LC. Right now, the draft is (entirely understandably) pretty positive, e.g. "If this desire is proactively advertised by the user agent, things become much simpler." I think the LC demonstrates that there are reasons to believe that "things" in fact might get worse in various respects, even if they appear simpler from the POV of those proposing/implementing this. (And as many Internet-draft and RFC titles over the years have amply demonstrated... simpler != better:-) S. > > -- Christian Huitema > > >