Re: [dbound] on "control"

[Casey Deccio <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Control:: (as in "Is domain X under the same control as domain Y")
>
>
While this was one of the "questions" that were posed for discussion prior
to the DBOUND WG meeting in Prague, it seems to me to be fairly high level
and the least grounded in an actual application problem.  I'm not saying
that it's not worth consideration, but if I had to prioritize the
questions, this one comes after others that stem from current application
needs (e.g., HTTP cookies, DMARC, etc.).


> Therefore, it seems to me that we could cover the two different use
> cases by refining the SOPA record Jeff and I have already proposed,
> and then adding a different mechanism for the second style of problem.
> We could call this second case "Parent-Imposed Policy Assertion" (or
> PIPA for a nmemonic.  Yes, this tickles me slightly).  The PIPA RR
> would in effect assert that it has policy rules that bind descendents.
>

In general, think you're right - that there are two broad categories of the
problem: identifying policy relationships between a domain name and its
ancestor or descendant; and identifying policy relationships between two
domain names that are not ancestrally related.  This sentiment was
expressed at the DBOUND WG meeting in Prague.  I also had with the
impression from the WG discussion that the two should be considered
separately and that the former was the more pressing than the latter.

My focus as of late has been the former, and I have a draft that will be
submitted soon on that topic--probably Monday.

Casey