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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 10 March 2013 18:30 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 B6CDE21F84C9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:30:01 -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=[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 P0tJyoOaSK-Y for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B17F21F84E8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:30:01 -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 52F5B8A031 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:30:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:29:28 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130310182928.GE37514@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20130310042250.GE33497@mx1.yitter.info> <75239F19-93AF-40EF-A367-0E289A6D1269@frobbit.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <75239F19-93AF-40EF-A367-0E289A6D1269@frobbit.se>
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: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:30:01 -0000

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 09:09:21AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 
> I feel two things are included in the proposal:
> 
> 1. Whether for example cookies should be set on the domain name
> 2. Whether two (or more) domain names are within the same policy domain

I claim that (1) is actually just an instance of (2), and it just so
happens to be the worst irritant of these cases so it's the one people
talk about.

> This will be managed by either the owner of tld if there is no zone cut, or co.tld if there is a zone cut.

A significant point of this proposal is to get this away from trying
to use the zone cut as in any way meaningful in this context.  It's
the illusion that a zone cut tells you anything here that we need to
combat.  That was a category mistake that people made early on.
Moreover, when I initially thought about this, I thought that maybe we
could link the SOPA record to zone cuts; but I quickly realized that
the zone cut is really an orthoganal issue, and we shouldn't nail this
problem to that one.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com