[idn] Re: dichotomies

Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org> Sun, 27 February 2005 19:20 UTC

Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23619 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:20:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D5Tsh-000A6j-5w for idn-data@psg.com; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:15:07 +0000
Received: from [207.115.63.102] (helo=pimout3-ext.prodigy.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D5Tsg-000A5o-5p for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:15:06 +0000
Received: from [10.1.1.2] (adsl-64-174-147-206.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.174.147.206]) by pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id j1RJF1pY064608; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:15:01 -0500
Message-ID: <42221C34.2060505@vanderpoel.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:15:00 -0800
From: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF idn working group <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: [idn] Re: dichotomies
References: <D872CCF059514053ECF8A198@scan.jck.com> <421D8411.9030006@vanderpoel.org> <p06210208be4390618c81@[192.168.0.101]> <421E0D0C.2000309@vanderpoel.org> <p06210202be43c3888991@[192.168.0.101]> <E07CE813AD23B2D95DA0C740@scan.jck.com> <421E30F2.1040408@vanderpoel.org> <0E7F74C71945B923C52211F3@scan.jck.com> <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org> <00a401c51af3$7863aae0$030aa8c0@DEWELL> <20050226081913.GD14956~@nicemice.net> <42221AB7.9070000@vanderpoel.org>
In-Reply-To: <42221AB7.9070000@vanderpoel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Erik van der Poel wrote:
> Another bifurcation that could be considered somewhat analogous is that 
> of http vs https. We might even want to consider bringing the topic of 
> security into the ACE prefix discussion. One could imagine a world where 
> two different ACE prefixes co-exist, one new prefix for "secure" domain 
> labels, the other (old) prefix for less secure labels.

Sorry, I forgot to say that a Web site would choose the new secure ACE 
prefix when they use https. In fact, they would make that choice for 
similar reasons, i.e. to allow the user agent to distinguish this site 
from a less secure one, similar to Mozilla's current choice of using the 
padlock icon and a different color near the URI at the top for https.

Erik