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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:19:30PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:

> 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.

I am not even a little bit convinced that the distinction is part of
any solution.  It seems to me that it is a distinction that obscures
at least as much as it clarifies, and it is the source of much
confusion.  I think outlining how we got the distinction and so on
might help for historical reasons, but I think the distinction will do
more harm than good in figuring out how to proceed.

> I don't believe that (that each will have their own context and scope for
> public or private) is the case--if the scope is truly "public".

But this is actually part of the problem: the so-called public
suffixes are often _not_ truly public, even though in many
circumstances we want to treat them as such.  If you need additional
gradations, then the public/private boundary starts to blur, and
pretty soon you have a bunch of different categories.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]