Re: [dd] DBOUND scope

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

Sure. for zone cuts substitute "and other policy/administrative
boundaries" -The point is the same: there are real problems in the
space, regarding parent, grandparent, child, permission(less) models,
directionality of permission stating, seeking, you name it. Thats what
policy often IS: problems between roles.

Keeping DBOUND in mind is good enough for me btw. I just don't want
forbidden-to-discuss signs on a charter unless there's a clear reason
why and (I guess) consensus.

-G

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:25 AM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> It appears that George Michaelson  <[e-mail]> said:
> >Maybe a divide-and-conquer issue here is how to specify zone-cut and
> >policy limits to zone cut(s) -because right now every mechanism I
> >imagine comes with its own set of issues. ...
>
> Except that, as Peter noted, thre are zone cuts that are not boundaries,
> and boundaries that are not zone cuts.
>
> To reiterate the points I made at the mike: A) the browsers which are
> the main users of the PSL think the static file is fine and have no
> interest in looking in the DNS, and 2) for some applications you do
> not want to let people assert that they're a boundary without third
> party review.
>
> How about we agree that we sort of keep DBOUND in mind but we don't
> otherwise plan to do anything about it?
>
> R's,
> John