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

[Casey Deccio <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 06:28:20PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
> > Are you saying that there is no solution that can effectively use a
> > public/private distinction of names to determine whether or not there is
> > some sort of policy relationship between them?
>
> I'm saying that the categories are either too generic not to need
> subclassing (in which case they're inadequate to our needs) or else we
> will solve the wrong problem (in which case, they're inadequate to our
> needs).
>

Thanks for the clarification.  Please understand that the public/private
scope delineation discussed in the draft does not imply that it is a
solution; it is a conceptual notion from which a solution component might
be based (and by component, I mean does not stand alone).  Nor does the
draft intend to equate scope with policy.  Please don't dismiss the notion
or the language on that basis.  Sections 3 and 6 respectively discuss the
utility of scope knowledge and the high-level solution considerations,
which might be a composite set.

Casey