Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

"Antoin Verschuren" <> Mon, 09 June 2008 12:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13BF73A6A4A; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D223A6A4A for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.504
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HoFcuH1CGSnU for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216353A692A for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (TUNIX/Firewall Mail Server) with ESMTP id A782E3ACD2 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:02:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (TUNIX/Firewall Mail Server) with ESMTP for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:02:05 +0200 (CEST)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:02:05 +0200
Message-ID: <B33086268D53A0429A3AA2774C83892C028E1694@KAEVS1.SIDN.local>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List
thread-index: AcjKJMxbs9MuOMn8QuqhM+8B53p7sAAAPGRg
References: <> <>
From: "Antoin Verschuren" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> If you are going to push this 'technology', you might want to consider
> doing an SPF-alike test, thus getting that information from the provider
> of the label, or better: fix the cookie standards.

I must agree here.
What I see here is an attempt to make a global list of local policy.
That won't scale administrative.
You're trying to apply 2 structures on the same namespace.
If you would like to get some authoritative answer on the existence of a zone boundary, the only place you should administer this is in the DNS itself.

I'm very afraid that Mozilla is trying to hijack the authority model here.
If this is hardcoded into Firefox, and requires a software update for changes to work, then all TLD's are delivered to the goodwill of Firefox developers to have changes to their zones work in real life.
And what's next, TLD's that need to propagate changes in their zones to each and every software developer, so it can be hardcoded in their products too ?

Antoin Verschuren

Technical Policy Advisor
Utrechtseweg 310
PO Box 5022
6802 EA Arnhem
The Netherlands

T +31 26 3525500
F +31 26 3525505
M +31 6 23368970
DNSOP mailing list