Re: alternate domain relationships proposal

I think in our discussion last week we talked about something even 
simpler. We suggested that there was not a need to have a two-way 
handshake. A site should be able to use our-host even if the host it is 
referring to does not point to its PRF.

So... an our-host tag in a POLICY-REF would mean that for any URIs 
covered by this policy, any embedded content (anything that would be 
covered by a HINT element) that is served from a URI covered by the 
our-host tag should be considered as coming from the entity or its 
agents (or entities for whom it is acting as an agent).  [not very well 
said, but hopefully, you can tell what I mean]

And, an our-host token in a CP would mean that any cookies served with 
the current page that domain match the our-host tag should be 
considered as coming from the entity or its agents (or entities for 
whom it is acting as an agent).

Lorrie


On Mar 17, 2004, at 1:47 AM, Humphrey, Jack wrote:

> Based on our discussion last week, here is a draft of an alternate 
> proposal
> for a new "our-host" extension element (renamed to distinguish from the
> previous proposal's "known-host") with a different semantic meaning. 
> Also
> included is an extension to the compact policy P3P header to support 
> the
> same mechanism for compact policies.
>
> Please review this new proposal and compare to the previous proposal. 
> Is it
> more straightforward? Might it be less confusing for implementers and 
> user
> agent developers?
>
> Thanks. I will probably be late to the call and may have some trouble
> participating verbally, as I will be coming from a dental appointment.
>
> ++Jack++
>
> <03-domain-relationships-alternate.html>

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 10:56:33 UTC