Hi Gervase,
At 02:15 11-06-2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>They don't have to. Why should TLDs think they have an automatic right
>to have Firefox display domains they have issued which allow our users
>to be fooled or defrauded?
Does that mean that the new Firefox will never display domains that
allow its users to be fooled or defrauded? :-)
At 04:25 11-06-2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>It's not true that we won't work on any other solution. This is what we
>have now, and there have been no alternative proposals which (to my
>mind) look like producing anything workable in the short term.
If you push aside all the negative views, you won't see any
alternative proposals.
>Half this list seems to think that getting all the TLDs to agree on or
>do anything is an enterprise doomed to failure, and the other half seem
That's because there are some people on this list who have attempted
that before.
>to think that we should be waiting for all the TLD operators to agree to
>set up their own repositories of the data. There is a contradiction there.
Maybe those people are not looking for a short-term fix.
By the way, the question of suffix lists has been discussed in other
Internet areas before. It's not restricted to cookies only. The
fact that nobody pointed you to a RFC suggests that there hasn't been
an acceptable solution yet.
Quoting RFC 4085:
"Products that rely on such embedded IP addresses initially may appear
to be convenient to the product's designer and to its operator or user,
but this dubious benefit comes at the expense of others in the Internet
community."
Replace IP addresses with publish suffix and you'll see why your
proposal generated so much controversy on this mailing list.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
