Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-sullivan-domain-origin-assert-00

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:03:52 -0700

Murray noted..
 >
 >> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of =JeffH
 >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:54 PM
 >>
 >> regarding the document title..
 >>
 >> Using the term "origin" in regards to this will be problematic because
 >> "origin" has been in long term use in the Web world (e.g., "same origin
 >> policy"). Plus, in the latter use, an origin is a tuple of scheme, host,
 >> port, and so this, administrative realm boundaries, is decidedly
 >> different.
 >
 > The term "origin" has been in use in DNS zone files (cf. RFC1034) far
 > longer than there's been a Web. :-)

doh!  (lol)

yeah, thanks, so this is yet another instance where the use of an unqualified 
term, rather than a more qualified phrase, is problematic.

Thus I'm relieved that RFC6454 is entitled "The Web Origin Concept", at least.

Unfortunately, RFCs 1034 and 1035 don't explicitly coin a qualified phrase, 
although RFC1035 uses "relative domain name origin" in one place, so one can 
perhaps squint and claim that "domain name origin" is defined there.

So perhaps a draft such as draft-sullivan-domain-origin-assert should clearly 
reference that, further define/clarify as necessary, and use "domain name 
origin" and/or "domain origin" consistently throughout.

Such practice would help avoid the unfortunate misunderstanding of the thrust 
of that draft that's already occurred in the brief discussion over on 
[email-masked].

( and I'd argue that we probably should have done a s/origin/web origin/g 
within RFC6454, but oh well, at least "web origin" is in the header on every page )

=JeffH