Hi Dan,

Sorry for the delay here.

On 05/07/12 16:39, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> On 7/5/12 1:37 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Recently, it was decided that a whitelist was not scalable in the face
>> of hundreds of new TLDs, and that we had to come up with a new approach.
>> We did, based on some suggestions from the Unicode Consortium:
>>
>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/IDN_Display_Algorithm
> 
> Big thanks to you and Simon Montagu for driving this forward!
> 
> Given that the new criteria are not as strict as our old policy, why
> would we want to preserve the old whitelist system in parallel?

The new policy is tighter in some ways; as you say, it applies to all
levels. We also wanted to avoid any nasty surprises. I'm not ruling out
removing the old system later, but it's simple (only a few lines of
code) and I wanted to make sure this change didn't break any
previously-working sites.

> If there were any such edge-case domains would they be shown as IDN
> in any of the other browsers (besides Opera who uses the same
> whitelist mechanism)?

Everyone does it differently, even Opera (different whitelist, plus it
also has some heuristics as well).

> What's the time-frame on the new IDN algorithm? Sounds relatively
> close so why not let them just start working when that lands instead
> of whitelisting them?

Because I don't want to gate making things better for IDN-in-.com users
on the completion of a patch I'm not writing.

Also, we can check in a TLD whitelist change on beta pretty easily; we
can't port a patch forward that far.

> Have they revoked all the previously spoofing domains? 

The Paypal one now belongs to paypal.

> Have they
> audited all their existing domains to make sure there aren't
> additional ones in there that violate their new rules? What is their
> transition plan for the domains that do exist?

Good questions; I will ask.

> Their new rules going forward sound fine, it's any grand-fathered
> mess I'm worried about. I'm especially worried if you proceed with
> your currently stated plan of preserving the whitelist even after
> the new algorithm lands.

I could revert the whitelist to its state pre-new-plan once the new
algorithm lands, if that would be better. (I.e. remove the ones included
under transitional arrangements.)

Gerv
_______________________________________________
dev-security mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security

Reply via email to