Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

[Gervase Markham <[e-mail]>]

Patrik Fältström wrote:
> What about new structures in a TLD that is in the list?

If the structure is additive, then again there is no problem. If it is
reductive, then there are potential problems depending on how the
customers of the newly-available domains set things up.

Let us say, for example, that the .zz domain has five sub-levels, which
are the only places you can register:

com.zz
org.zz
net.zz
ltd.zz
plc.zz

So this is what the list will say. Now, say the .zz domain changes their
policies to permit direct registration under the root.

If someone purchases "foo.zz", they will not be able to set a cookie for
"foo.zz" until the list is updated. They will, however, be able to set
one for "www.foo.zz". So what is inhibited is the sharing of cookies
across different sites in the same domain, not the setting of cookies
entirely.

I agree that this is not ideal. But I believe what we are doing now is
the least worst option, and that good publicity for the scheme among the
TLD owners will mean that if they are considering sº&v{(¥º.Ç¬‰ë_¢¸¢rnŸÝ;ێzÛM<Eën®sÚ¶g²Š[¢éÜzȞµú+s«Š§jTèv{(¥ªÜ†+ޖ+-²'­~Šà
éb½êÞu:"z×Ú­È]žÊ)j·!Š÷œ¢··jk%r‰‘yÇ¢½ç_®‰µÛ½4ÖZjXh²ÝvïM5o'(­íښÉ\¢cè²×âÇ­„DŒLøÔ;p:¯L¢Iº}´ÓÍ;ێzÓ½4<4×:¸ Šv¥N‡g²Š\¢··jk%r‰ƒzX¯z·N‡g²Š\¢··jk%r‰‘yÇ¢½ç_®‰¥¡Æ¥†‹-–‡–,·]»ÓM[ÉÊ+{v¦²W(˜ú,µø±Â+a#>'x÷ßÜ‚ë§è­Ù좗(­íښÉ\¢c(ŸÒnŸm4óNöãž4ïM
5Պ»¬IƧçZ™«â±ÙÞÁ«ZšÉ\¢eÒ¥©…•¨
9t©jdœ¢··ëŽ—J–¦-ëޕt©jd­jÛ¬6‹¢·