Re: [dbound] DBOUND interest @ IETF 114?

There really needs to be a better method for a domain owner to communicate
to the world how they would intend their domain(s) to be interacted with.

There are tons of ad-hoc solution-for-purpose repositories (like PSL, HSTS,
etc) that have popped up to do this.  I fear I sound like I am tip-toeing
us towards #oceanboil, but the goal is having an easy place for this to
happen with the widest impact.   So much overlap exists that could be much
more efficient than tracking down what resource and how to request
entries, formatting, approval, etc.

-Jothan
Jothan Frakes

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:26 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
> >I'm not at the meeting, so won't be there to attend anything.
> >
> >I think the working group failed the last time because there were
> multiple
> >views of what problem we were solving.  Whatever you decide to do with
> this
> >stab at it, I would strongly encourage you to pick one problem, solve it,
> and
> >leave the rest for later.  We already know trying to solve it all hasn't
> been
> >successful.
>
> In case the meeting is Friday after I leave, the problem my approach tries
> to
> solve is basically the one that the PSL does, to define cut points in the
> DNS
> and assert that names below each cut point are under different management
> (for
> some flavor of management) than the cut point.
>
> It goes slightly farther than the PSL in that you can put in flags to say
> which flavor(s) of management apply at each cut point such as cookie
> origin, SSL
> certificates, and DMARC.
>
> I think it solves this specific problem well.  It doesn't try to do
> anything else.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> dbound mailing list
> dbound@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound
>