Re: ACTION-201 (ISSUE-112)

Ian,

I completely agree, particularly given the new TLD issues (and I second your personal opinion on their need).  [name].bank is going to be a vastly different question than [name].credit-suisse.  It seems to me that if there is ever to be any concrete distinction here it would have to be the presence of a public market for the second level domain, but I can't imagine defining such a market  would be in scope of this document.

-Brooks

--

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com

[cid:42DE8246-1719-4674-B71E-9F888297CBCD]

This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender immediately and delete the message.

From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>>
Reply-To: "ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>" <ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:36 AM
To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: ACTION-201 (ISSUE-112)
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:37 AM

"How are sub-domains handled for site-specific exceptions?" - from a browser standpoint, I don't wish to further propagate the notion of "registry controlled domains" which is an unfortunate reality that we currently have with cookies, where browsers try to keep a list of what is a "public suffix" (contains multiple unrelated entities beneath it, such as .com). We have ~6,800 entries in there so far (http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/netwerk/dns/effective_tld_names.dat?raw=1) - this is only getting worse now that ICANN has, in a rather questionable move (personal opinion), decided to make the top-level domain namespace a wild west.

So, I don't want to say "all subdomains" because we have no idea what that means.

Rather, I would prefer to say "A site can request a site-wide exception for its own origin and any other origins that it considers to also be in the same party, e.g. http://www.example.com could request a site-wide exception for http://www.example.com, https://www.example.com, https://example.com, https://mail.example.com, https://www.example.de, http://www.example.de"

Sadly, I fear this is going to become nightmarish as sites add and delete origins over time ("Hey, now we're http://search.google!" or "Hey, we just launched example.az<http://example.az>" or "newproduct.example.com<http://newproduct.example.com>"). That said, I've got nothing better to offer...

-Ian