Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 11, 2008, at 6:26 AM, 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. > > Putting the list in the DNS instead of in the browser isn't workable?
Perhaps, but not in the short term. > Serious question. I think several proposals have been advanced here > that /could/ work. Mine has the virtue of being completely under your > control. It does. I admit I hadn't thought of something like that, and would be interested to see what Yngve makes of it. He's done the most work on protocols for transmitting this information; see: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pettersen-subtld-structure-03.txt Is there a particular reason that DNS is a better mechanism than HTTP, in your view? Or is that an implementation detail? > I haven't heard you responding that either of these solutions wouldn't > work, so I'm assuming they would, but perhaps I'm wrong. It also may > be the case that for reasons of practicality you need to start with a > list embedded in the browser; as long as you have a plan to make the > transition to a list that's maintained more dynamically, and as long as > you actually execute that plan, it seems to me that this is harmless. The second question is one of resources and client complexity. I am meeting resistance to the idea of having the existing list regularly dynamically downloaded, which would be the simplest method of providing more frequent updates than the six-to-eight week Firefox security releases. An assemble-and-cache-the-data-from-DNS scheme would be an order of magnitude more complex. Gerv _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
