Re: [apps-discuss] "finding registered domains"

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737B911E81BE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6874g7lpCIKw for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031E611E81B6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (dhcp-2430.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.36.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25F2E8A031 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:17:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:17:33 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130314201733.GH50106@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <CAL0qLwaD_6k36ZzAFO_KKkP=ud_Cd=-4P+vH_UQ58p6BcuY25A@mail.gmail.com> <20130312202442.GE41728@mx1.yitter.info> <CAL0qLwbg6CxtGO=b+iEtDXw3-FG1Rjr1QG_hcgxiGo5P7fPqgA@mail.gmail.com> <20130312205006.GI41728@mx1.yitter.info> <CAL0qLwb_X=WeNE8Hp9HWnd64OvZCu0bgdmDaw5Gct_VEsY45MA@mail.gmail.com> <20130313032655.GD41909@mx1.yitter.info> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05600CB2@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CAMm+LwgydcQaSY-e3UeyB0AF=CpRe506_Zt5W+rRqBXYUTLFew@mail.gmail.com> <20130313175552.GC45769@mx1.yitter.info> <CAPTpOHLnq-cNe9ei9QuCWNJyb4yoviJuESGR3eSEuVge-uNxrA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPTpOHLnq-cNe9ei9QuCWNJyb4yoviJuESGR3eSEuVge-uNxrA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] "finding registered domains"
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:17:45 -0000

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:29:50PM -0400, Behnam Esfahbod wrote:
> For example, company Example may wants to prevent cookie sharing between
> its domain (example.com) and their outsourced shopping subdomain (
> shop.example.com), but likes to keep the address-bar domain-name
> highlighting to "example.com", because of marketing reasons.

This is an interesting point.  It seems to me, however, that the whole
point of the address bar name highlighting is supposed to be for the
_user_, and to tell that user its scope.  That makes me think that the
answer here is, "Example loses." 

But the broader question is, "Is it sensible for a given name to have
different administrative realms for different purposes?"  If so, not
to put too fine a point on it, I think we're screwed.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com