Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about tree walks

Paul Vixie <> Wed, 11 November 2020 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD23B3A1186 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:23:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id knfPDAi7FC0C for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4C0E3A1184 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 716) id 9BCF1C3F03; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:23:04 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:23:04 +0000
From: Paul Vixie <>
To: John R Levine <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <20201111181423.7B1A9262936D@ary.qy> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about tree walks
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:23:06 -0000

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 05:17:54PM -0500, John R Levine wrote:
> > if you guys are going to automate and secure the public suffix list
> > functionality, ...
> Not a chance.

seems like we're passing like ships in the night here.

> > icann will likely never require it, but hopefully ietf can specify
> > it, after which the invisible hand of the market can decide it.
> Doubly not a chance.  Having been hanging around the "expedited" process at
> ICANN I can assure you that the registries will voluntarily provide no WHOIS
> data at all.  The business plan, you know.

i know about the business plans. so icann will never require it. but if
there's an ietf specified way for a registrar to signal their role in all
their domains, it'll be seen by at least one of them as a market
differentiator. (i know the ones i'll be proposing this to.)

that's all we need.

so instead of debating whether icann is or is not a regulator and whether they
have or have not been captured by their industry and whether they can or
cannot require anything controversial, can we debate instead whether the
ietf, being above the fray, can possibly specify a scalable ("not in whois")
method of automatic identification of a domain's registrar?

i brought this up because this marker's presence would also help with the
kinds of tree walking and public-suffix-list functionalities we use today.
so, there's technical merit here, it's not strictly a defense budget play.

Paul Vixie