Re: [dbound] comments on draft-deccio-domain-name-relationships-00

[Gervase Markham <[e-mail]>]

On 06/04/15 19:19, Casey Deccio wrote:
> There are two points to the document: historical context, including
> description of the PSL and known current usage; and concepts for
> identifying policy relationships between domain names.  It does not
> attempt to endorse PSL use for one purpose or other, but it does speak
> of the concepts (i.e., so-called "public"/"private" suffixes) introduced
> by the PSL, as well a PSL-like registry to implement those concepts, as
> part of a solution.  However, it explicitly mentions that neither the
> PSL nor a PSL-like registry is sufficient for a complete solution to the
> problem.

When we split the PSL into two, various other use cases were floated,
but it was decided that the distinction we made was the one people most
commonly wanted to make, and would serve. But indeed, there may well be
use cases for which other distinctions would be better.

> Neither am I insinuating that the current PSL is 100% accurate based on
> the described notion of public/private.

Bug reports welcome :-) Although remember, we only add domains to the
PRIVATE section upon request of the domain owner, because we want to be
certain that the owner is aware of the ramifications of doing so. So
that list is necessarily incomplete, in that it does not contain all
privately-held domains which issue subdomains to mutually-untrusting
parties.

Gerv