Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

Gervase Markham <> Mon, 09 June 2008 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F363A6B5C; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC79D3A6B5C for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.950, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2wIKnNE-IDKP for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE8D3A6A73 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1K5kIE-0002zp-KN; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:32:30 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:34:16 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1 (X11/2008050714)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -11
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

David Conrad wrote:
> I suspect I might have a better list than you (:-) hint: I work at ICANN).

Well, OK :-)

> My reading of Yngve's draft (in particular, section 5.1) led me to
> believe that all TLDs would not need to run such a service, rather that
> such a service be available in a "well known" place (I think the right
> approach would be for IANA to maintain pointers to well known places,
> but that's an implementation detail).

I'm happy to admit that Yngve's solution, if it ever got up and running,
would be a good one. (Although it's worth noting that such a service
would need to deal with a non-negligible amount of traffic.) But it
doesn't exist.

> I'm curious: have you consulted with the various TLD-related
> organizations (e.g., ccNSO, gNSO, CENTR, APTLD, AfTLD, LACTLD, etc.) on
> how to solve this problem?

No. What do you think they'd say that hasn't been said in this thread

We've had this basic problem in the domain of cookies for years. I don't
expect another solution to pop out of the woodwork now. But I'm open to
being surprised :-)

DNSOP mailing list