Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

[Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]>]

Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be more appropriate for MyBank to _itself_ say the history
> > for these sites should be grouped?  E.g. in an HTTP response header,
> > or DNS record for mybank.co.uk?
> 
> The total amount of effort required for this solution is mind-boggling.

How is it more work for them to publish over DNS or HTTP, than to send
you the information to publish, with the associated time lag etc?

You've asked for the same thing: for administrators of certain domains
to provide you with information about independent or related users of
those subdomains.

The only difference that I see, is you're able to include commonly
known information about TLDs like *.com and *.co.uk.  I agree with
that: it's good to collect and publish the info.

For the more obscure ISP-owned domains with independent user
sub-domains, I don't see a difference in work _for them_ between you
putting out a call and collecting the info, and keeping it update as
new ISPs come on line, and the ISPs having a mechanism to publish it
themselves.  Except that the latter will be more accurate, and less
work for you.

-- Jamie

> > Also, wouldn't DNS generally be the appropriate mechanism to say what
> > grouping relationships there are under $DOMAIN?  After all, the
> > administrative control for the grouping info which you are maintaining
> > for *.$DOMAIN, and DNS for *.$DOMAIN, are the same.
> 
> It would be an appropriate mechanism; when it does contain this
> information, let me know.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietfFrom [e-mail]  Mon Jun  9 09:37:15 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D0F28C173;
	Mon,  9 Jun 2008 09:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A35228C173
	for <[e-mail]>; Mon,  9 Jun 2008 09:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.399
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-1.800, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id BTee9hcCIUfs for <[e-mail]>;
	Mon,  9 Jun 2008 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.shareable.org (mail2.shareable.org [80.68.89.115])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480173A6A6C
	for <[e-mail]>; Mon,  9 Jun 2008 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <[e-mail]>)
	id 1K5kMd-0000rn-Ov; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:36:59 +0100
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:36:59 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]>
To: Gervase Markham <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be more appropriate for MyBank to _itself_ say the history
> > for these sites should be grouped?  E.g. in an HTTP response header,
> > or DNS record for mybank.co.uk?
> 
> The total amount of effort required for this solution is mind-boggling.

How is it more work for them to publish over DNS or HTTP, than to send
you the information to publish, with the associated time lag etc?

You've asked for the same thing: for administrators of certain domains
to provide you with information about independent or related users of
those subdomains.

The only difference that I see, is you're able to include commonly
known information about TLDs like *.com and *.co.uk.  I agree with
that: it's good to collect and publish the info.

For the more obscure ISP-owned domains with independent user
sub-domains, I don't see a difference in work _for them_ between you
putting out a call and collecting the info, and keeping it update as
new ISPs come on line, and the ISPs having a mechanism to publish it
themselves.  Except that the latter will be more accurate, and less
work for you.

-- Jamie

> > Also, wouldn't DNS generally be the appropriate mechanism to say what
> > grouping relationships there are under $DOMAIN?  After all, the
> > administrative control for the grouping info which you are maintaining
> > for *.$DOMAIN, and DNS for *.$DOMAIN, are the same.
> 
> It would be an appropriate mechanism; when it does contain this
> information, let me know.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


tf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop