Added an initial "Control Mechanisms" section

index.html

@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ <h2>Introduction</h2>
     with poor UX, as that reflects negatively on them and the perception of their applications.</p>
 
     <p>As a result, there's an increasing need for guaranteed performance, where the embedders can know for certain that mobile performance
-    anti-patterns were avoided by the site to which it links</p>
+    anti-patterns were avoided by the site to which it links.</p>
 
     <p>At the same time, and probably for similar reasons, usage of content blockers have seen a dramatic rise, as users are more performance and
     bandwidth conscious, and are willing to install browser extensions and applications to help them increase performance, reduce bandwidth
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ <h2>Introduction</h2>
     and will provide performance guarantees of the site to interested parties.</p>
 
     <p>The mechanism defined here borrows heavily from the syntax of Content-Security-Policy[[!CSP3]], including its reporting capabilities. The
-    main difference is the defined directives</p>
+    main difference is the defined directives.</p>
 
     <p>The directives defined can be divided into three groups: directives enforcing performance best practices and opting into the fast
     path, directives aimed at reducing the consumption of resources, and directives aimed at enforcing mobile-friendly user experience.</p>
@@ -150,14 +150,17 @@ <h4>No overlays</h4>
     <h4>No popunders</h4>
 
     <p class=note title=TODO>Does this cover all the annoying things sites do?</p>
-    <p class=note title=TODO>Explain the mechanism that we're proposing</p>
+  </section>
+  <section>
+    <h2>Control Mechanisms</h2>
+    <p>The intent of this specification is to provide control mechanisms that are very similar to those of Content-Security-Policy[[!CSP3]].
+    Authors should be able to apply directives to all hosts, certain hosts, and unlike CSP, to all except certain hosts.
+    Similiarly to CSP, there would be a report-only mode that would enable authors to test their configuration. Unlike CSP, we may need to
+    be able to specify "report" vs. "enforce" mode on a per directive basis.</p>
+    Some directives may require additional values and parameters.</p>
+
+    <p class=note title=TODO>Does this cover all barriers to adoption and enable developers to avoid breakage?</p>
 
-    <!--
-    <pre class="example highlight html">
-    </pre>
-    <pre class="example">
-    </pre>
-    -->
   </section>
   <section>
     <h2>Directives</h2>