Re: [wpkops] Taxonomy of Browser Behaviors - "Hard Fail", "Soft Fail" and "Reload Request"

Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com> Wed, 30 April 2014 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
X-Original-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F001A6F7B for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.29
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZU2oPE8MKFUW for <wpkops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ian.brad.office.comodo.net (eth5.brad-fw.brad.office.ccanet.co.uk [178.255.87.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75091A6F03 for <wpkops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6126 invoked by uid 1000); 30 Apr 2014 14:58:46 -0000
Received: from nigel.brad.office.comodo.net (HELO [192.168.0.58]) (192.168.0.58) (smtp-auth username rob, mechanism plain) by ian.brad.office.comodo.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:58:46 +0100
Message-ID: <53610FA6.104@comodo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:58:46 +0100
From: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Yngve N. Pettersen" <yngve@spec-work.net>, Ben Wilson <ben@digicert.com>, Michael Jenkins <bergtau@gmail.com>
References: <029801cf63dd$0f484330$2dd8c990$@digicert.com> <CAB3ZzJJZ_Of81esvCT-iyDwOcDxnDa_vBqhpE2v2y4VFz23uuQ@mail.gmail.com> <op.xe4wioym3dfyax@killashandra.invalid.invalid>
In-Reply-To: <op.xe4wioym3dfyax@killashandra.invalid.invalid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpkops/_USv1sf6HKdyBc3sq0QHB5PP49Y
Cc: wpkops WG <wpkops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Taxonomy of Browser Behaviors - "Hard Fail", "Soft Fail" and "Reload Request"
X-BeenThere: wpkops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <wpkops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wpkops/>
List-Post: <mailto:wpkops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops>, <mailto:wpkops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:58:54 -0000

On 30/04/14 15:43, Yngve N. Pettersen wrote:
<snip>
> IOW, the four levels and actions are:
>
> No detected problem: Continue, no indications to the user necessary
> Low level problem: Continue, visual problem indications optional, aka
> "soft fail"
> Serious problem: Stop connection, ask the user whether to continue
> Critical problem: Close connection, don't allow the user to continue,
> aka "hard fail"

FWIW, I tend to label these four levels as...
   No Fail
   Soft Fail
   Hard Fail
   Block Fail

But it's clear to me from this thread that my labels are too vague.  ;-)

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online