ACTION-555: Proposed change to petnames

Tyler,

here's my proposed text for the petnames chapter to take care of the  
"base domain" notion; this addresses ISSUE-224 if you agree:

> 	<p>

> 	  For <termref def="def-secure-page">TLS-secured pages</termref>,  
> the user agent MAY allow the user to assign the authenticated entity  
> a <termdef id="def-petname">petname</termdef>. This assignment MUST  
> create a binding between the petname and the domain name part of the  
> URI that is dereferenced.  Implementations MAY instead choose to  
> create this binding with a suffix of that domain part.  How such a  
> suffix is determined is implementation-specific behavior.

> 	</p>

> 	<p>

> 	  Note: Some Web user agents attempt to determine the minimum  
> domain name suffix that is likely to represent an administrative  
> separation of domains.  E.g., for a domain name <code>www.example.co.uk 
> </code>, this suffix would be <code>example.co.uk</code>, while the  
> suffix for <code>www.example.com</code> would be <code>example.com</ 
> code> <bibref ref="ref-effective"/>.  Implementations that use such  
> suffixes for other security decisions (e.g., to determine the  
> shortest possible suffix that  <code>document.location.href</code>  
> can be shortened to) should use the same mechanism to determine the  
> suffix to which a petname can be bound.

> 	</p>

> 	<p>

> 	  Presentation of a petname MUST support renaming and deleting of a  
> petname binding.

> 	</p>


The additional reference is this one:

> 	<bibl id="ref-effective" key="EFFECTIVE">
> 	  <titleref ref="https://wiki.mozilla.org/ 
> Gecko:TLD_Service">Effective TLD
> 	  Service</titleref>, Mozilla Wiki, last checked on 2009-01-11.  https://wiki.mozilla.org/Gecko:TLD_Service
> 	</bibl>

Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Sunday, 11 January 2009 13:45:19 UTC