Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

Gervase Markham <> Tue, 10 June 2008 10:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CE03A6A35; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B113A6A35 for <>; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.557
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.958, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8FV0Za3Fne8e for <>; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C61E3A69EA for <>; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtp (Exim) id 1K60nc-0006lV-VU; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:09:57 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:09:56 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1 (X11/2008050714)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Conrad <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Plusnet-Relay: 0fb677adfce3c9a5f630104a7fb58698
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:
> You're talking about essentially creating a registry of their registry
> policies and distributing it statically via your product.  I would
> imagine they might be interested and might even have some useful input
> to provide. 

We're about to ask them for their input.

> Just to be clear, my understanding of the situation is that you are
> proposing to ask that every TLD who has a zone in which the public can
> register to notify you of that fact so that you can distribute and use a
> list of these registries within your product, relying on Mozilla's
> update/upgrade functionality to update and maintain this list.  Explicit
> in this proposal is that the registries notify you every time they add a
> new 'public registry' or change the status of an existing 'public
> registry'.  Failure to update a registry could have negative impact on
> customers of the TLD due to, for example, being unable to set cookies.
> Is this an accurate summary?

Yes, basically. For best results we'd get the data directly from those
in the know, but if they don't want to keep us informed, they don't have to.

If you think this is unreasonable, what is the alternative position?

- "No, sorry, you can't do any of the things for which you might want
this data"

- "It's fine to want this data, but you should get it via this
alternative method:..."

> P.S. If you do send your message to the technical contacts for all the
> TLDs, expect quite a few bounces.  

OK - thanks.

DNSOP mailing list