Re: [dbound] Suggestion for Prague: let's try to converge on problem(s)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 17 June 2015 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A371B2BE0 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d5S2ZfcSTNrK for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07B501B2BD6 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 82241 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2015 17:38:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Jun 2015 17:38:20 -0000
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:37:48 -0000
Message-ID: <20150617173748.74404.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dbound@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20150617153104.GD16823@anvilwalrusden.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/vML8AiIAt0gQgqpgL0fa8cBDoG8>
Cc: ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Subject: Re: [dbound] Suggestion for Prague: let's try to converge on problem(s)
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <dbound.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dbound/>
List-Post: <mailto:dbound@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:38:13 -0000

>In my reading, draft-deccio-domain-name-relationships-00 starts with a
>deep, fundamental division between "public" and (for want of a better
>term) "private" domain names.  I think it starts there because the
>authors genuinely believe that the distinction is a fundamental one.

I share your concern and agree with the implication this jumps to
places we don't necessarily want to be.  It seems to me more useful
to look at the questions are currently answering using the PSL, and
the kinds of answers:

* Should I accept a cookie at this name?  (domain -> yes/no)

* Should I sign an SSL cert at this name? (domain -> yes/no)

* Should I sign a wildcard SSL cert under this name? (domain -> yes/no)

* Where is the DMARC record for this name? (domain -> domain)

* Are these two names under the same control? (domain x domain -> yes/no)

The fact that the questions and answers aren't even all of the same
type should offer a hint that the structure is more complicated.

R's,
John