Re: [dbound] [DNSOP] Related Domains By DNS (RDBD) Draft

If it is really only a variant, you should just DNAME it to the other domain ?

Sent from mobile device

On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:37, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DNSOP <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:15 AM
>> To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>; Brotman, Alexander
>> <Alexander_Brotman@comcast.com>
>> Cc: art@ietf.org; dnsop@ietf.org; dbound@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DNSOP] [dbound] Related Domains By DNS (RDBD)
>> Draft
>> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>>> On 27/02/2019 15:54, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> How is this data being consumed by the enduser ?
>> 
>> Very good question. Sorry for what's likely a longer answer than you want:-)
>> 
>> Alex and I chatted about that and I think ended up
>> figuring: a) there are many potential semantics that could be associated with
>> such a linkage, b) we don't yet know what'd be useful, but c) no, we are defo
>> not trying for an EV-like thing and lastly d) we really want to keep this as
>> simple as possible - given there's a lot of feature-creep potential here, and
>> that'd likely be fatal.
>> 
>> My own use-case for this relates more to surveys, where I'd like to get a hint
>> that two names are related so I could take that into account. Alex's is more
>> business like (as you'd expect:-) he'd like to be able to feed this kind of
>> linkage information into mail processing, e.g. perhaps to treat some mails as
>> less-likely spam if he sees a link, compared to if he doesn't (with all the other
>> mail processing foo that'd clearly be required to not do that kind of thing
>> stupidly of course). We guess that there'd be other uses too but finding out if
>> this is seen as useful enough that people would publish RR's is part of why
>> we shot out the draft now.
>> 
>> We also considered whether or not to e.g. try to add some kind of flag to
>> indicate semantics but reckoned we don't know enough to do that for now.
> 
> This might also be useful for IDN variants where some downstream consumer would like to know that two different IDNs are actually "the same". The relationship between variants isn't a parent-child relationship (they're more commonly siblings), but perhaps the concept could be extended to identify sibling relationships, too.
> 
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop