Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

>>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all those terms mean and
>>> how they are all related.

yes. But it's worse than that.  The current language is not 
automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS 
administration.

As is being noted, I too think a great deal of the problem is 
over-reliance on the word register.

It is being used as if it explains a basic difference in administrative 
roles.  It doesn't.  Not even close.


>> To work with the example you gave here, I agree that "facebook.com" is registered (under "com"), but
>> disagree that "www.facebook.com" is registered at all;
> Right, of course it's not.

I disagree.  Strongly.  The fact that one registration is internal and 
another is through a third-party, semi-regulated service does not make a 
difference, for the use of that word.

I work with an organization that has an IT department that is just as 
formal typical ICANN-authorized registries.  To get a sub-domain is a 
Very Big Deal.  Don't think for a moment that it is fundamentally 
different than interacting with the TLD registeries.


> I didn't say that it is: I said that
> people who don't fully understand this stuff *think* it is, and that's
> the part that the text isn't making clear.
>
>> To my mind, "register" involves a specific transaction, sometimes involving money, with whoever gates
>> access to make those delegations.

How much do you pay to register to vote?

However the rest of the above statement is correct.  A transaction to 
record gain access to a resource or to reserve access to it.

Registration is a process of signing up.  That's all.  And it says 
nothing about the role or relationship of the entity the registration is 
with.



d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
[e-mail]
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[e-mail]