Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 11 June 2008 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECF13A6A8A; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA52C3A6A8A for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.929
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PY8Sho+H4g-v for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001713A686B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m5BKhYPm001763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1213217023; x=1213303423; bh=9zFeAd1XSVgSr2WRhrYZa0EjJlNL98DVeNhK AaRZ/vA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=qM4ydm8UJnwPbsYDitHimZDVis cKQWf+PvY/fxsx5MIyMkLveZBa0Ld0kgjGIZl/G09NCYTwSpkFQvGseYjyZU5aHulF0 1HTytLea8c9Fiqpo0fFHUJ2ylrkgzIvtmFMGAkSjR3SACKpe61tAHVGV+MHJr3Msscy /a0tbQJSf58=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=jRqXMKLz152M9IIEfznvAnAqc0WLZapL8U7vz8HINdiLltZoTbyB/bJux5lodiAy2 KqYeDwLx5Z8FF4fybLcEiYMCgS8K6FbSr9OZ606pyP/kKxOWURKye+bslNy1jfrRbpO kddmn/MgUd1O2IxNoHw5armxTGcL0NJoAP227bk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080611123836.0332d3e0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:23 -0700
To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <484F97A7.6020709@mozilla.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0806101207560.5176-100000@citation2.av8.net> <484F97A7.6020709@mozilla.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Gervase,
At 02:15 11-06-2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>They don't have to. Why should TLDs think they have an automatic right
>to have Firefox display domains they have issued which allow our users
>to be fooled or defrauded?

Does that mean that the new Firefox will never display domains that 
allow its users to be fooled or defrauded? :-)

At 04:25 11-06-2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>It's not true that we won't work on any other solution. This is what we
>have now, and there have been no alternative proposals which (to my
>mind) look like producing anything workable in the short term.

If you push aside all the negative views, you won't see any 
alternative proposals.

>Half this list seems to think that getting all the TLDs to agree on or
>do anything is an enterprise doomed to failure, and the other half seem

That's because there are some people on this list who have attempted 
that before.

>to From dnsop-bounces@ietf.org  Wed Jun 11 13:43:19 2008
Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECF13A6A8A;
	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA52C3A6A8A
	for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>om>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.929
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id PY8Sho+H4g-v for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>om>;
	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001713A686B
	for <dnsop@ietf.org>rg>; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m5BKhYPm001763
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail;
	t=1213217023; x=1213303423; bh=9zFeAd1XSVgSr2WRhrYZa0EjJlNL98DVeNhK
	AaRZ/vA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:
	References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=qM4ydm8UJnwPbsYDitHimZDVis
	cKQWf+PvY/fxsx5MIyMkLveZBa0Ld0kgjGIZl/G09NCYTwSpkFQvGseYjyZU5aHulF0
	1HTytLea8c9Fiqpo0fFHUJ2ylrkgzIvtmFMGAkSjR3SACKpe61tAHVGV+MHJr3Msscy
	/a0tbQJSf58=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns;
	b=jRqXMKLz152M9IIEfznvAnAqc0WLZapL8U7vz8HINdiLltZoTbyB/bJux5lodiAy2
	KqYeDwLx5Z8FF4fybLcEiYMCgS8K6FbSr9OZ606pyP/kKxOWURKye+bslNy1jfrRbpO
	kddmn/MgUd1O2IxNoHw5armxTGcL0NJoAP227bk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080611123836.0332d3e0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:43:23 -0700
To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <484F97A7.6020709@mozilla.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0806101207560.5176-100000@citation2.av8.net>
	<484F97A7.6020709@mozilla.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Gervase,
At 02:15 11-06-2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>They don't have to. Why should TLDs think they have an automatic right
>to have Firefox display domains they have issued which allow our users
>to be fooled or defrauded?

Does that mean that the new Firefox will never display domains that 
allow its users to be fooled or defrauded? :-)

At 04:25 11-06-2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
>It's not true that we won't work on any other solution. This is what we
>have now, and there have been no alternative proposals which (to my
>mind) look like producing anything workable in the short term.

If you push aside all the negative views, you won't see any 
alternative proposals.

>Half this list seems to think that getting all the TLDs to agree on or
>do anything is an enterprise doomed to failure, and the other half seem

That's because there are some people on this list who have attempted 
that before.

>to ththink that we should be waiting for all the TLD operators to agree to
>set up their own repositories of the data. There is a contradiction there.

Maybe those people are not looking for a short-term fix.

By the way, the question of suffix lists has been discussed in other 
Internet areas before.  It's not restricted to cookies only.  The 
fact that nobody pointed you to a RFC suggests that there hasn't been 
an acceptable solution yet.

Quoting RFC 4085:

   "Products that rely on such embedded IP addresses initially may appear
    to be convenient to the product's designer and to its operator or user,
    but this dubious benefit comes at the expense of others in the Internet
    community."

Replace IP addresses with publish suffix and you'll see why your 
proposal generated so much controversy on this mailing list.

Regards,
-sm

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


ink that we should be waiting for all the TLD operators to agree to
>set up their own repositories of the data. There is a contradiction there.

Maybe those people are not looking for a short-term fix.

By the way, the question of suffix lists has been discussed in other 
Internet areas before.  It's not restricted to cookies only.  The 
fact that nobody pointed you to a RFC suggests that there hasn't been 
an acceptable solution yet.

Quoting RFC 4085:

   "Products that rely on such embedded IP addresses initially may appear
    to be convenient to the product's designer and to its operator or user,
    but this dubious benefit comes at the expense of others in the Internet
    community."

Replace IP addresses with publish suffix and you'll see why your 
proposal generated so much controversy on this mailing list.

Regards,
-sm

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop