Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Mon, 09 June 2008 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0819F3A6B3A; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6083D3A6876 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.75
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.499, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynXkF7dBqjzt for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F0B3A6ACB for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp id 1K5lPG-000397-79; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:43:46 +0200
Received: from localhost by with local id 1K5lOR-00043l-Re; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:42:55 +0200
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:42:55 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: Gervase Markham <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
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


first I'd like to thank Yngve for providing the pointer and you for following
his advice.

> I am not particularly interested in a long discussion about whether we
> need this data. Please be assured that we need it. I am, on the other
> hand, open to suggestions about better ways to obtain it.

Without discussing the perceived need it's hard to tell what good or
better solution might exist.  From what I see and also from what I remember
from earlier discussions on this topic, you are trying to exploit a
property that the DNS simply doesn't have: You are trying to deduce
administrative "grouping" from proximity or hierarchy in the name space.
In spite of sloppy language that lets "a domain" have a policy or lets
"a domain" publish a website and so on, this is not what the DNS is about.

The DNS naming hierarchy does neither follow nor imply administrative
hierarchy.  Therefore, as others already suggested, the discussion of
the need or the way cookies' scopes are defined is more needed than
details of a data collection scheme that appears to be in conflict with
very basic properties of the protocol.

-Peter {no hats}
DNSOP mailing list