W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > July 2007

RE: ISSUE-92: P3P and Internet filters

From: Dan Schutzer <dan.schutzer@fstc.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:12:51 -0400
To: "'Stephen Farrell'" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "'Serge Egelman'" <egelman@cs.cmu.edu>, "'Mary Ellen Zurko'" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, "'Web Security Context WG'" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>, "'Dan Schutzer'" <dan.schutzer@fstc.org>
Message-ID: <010d01c7bfc6$faa3b110$6500a8c0@dschutzer>

I think we should add something like this and am willing to update
accordingly, maybe seeing if we could build on top of some of the P3P etc.
protocol

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:09 AM
To: Dan Schutzer
Cc: 'Serge Egelman'; 'Mary Ellen Zurko'; 'Web Security Context WG'
Subject: Re: ISSUE-92: P3P and Internet filters




Dan Schutzer wrote:

> The connection as I understand it might lie in concepts such as Safe Web
Browsing. 

+1 here. If a "safe browsing" concept existed (via the type of macro
language that Tim H was espousing say), then having a way for a site
to say "I'd like you to use profile <mumble> when accessing me, if
that's ok with you" would be good and is directly analagous to P3P
(and might even be expressible using P3P assertions?).

If that statement were also say digitally signed by some authority
(which could include the user herelf if she signed it last time and
kept the signature locally), then things could start to get fairly
interesting. However, some of that seems to be new protocol doesn't it?

S.
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 12:13:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:48 GMT