Re: [DNSOP] Public Suffix List

"Elmar K. Bins" <> Mon, 09 June 2008 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A0F3A6951; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3087F3A6951 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YD9TC3F8PE6s for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4080D3A685D for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elmi by with local (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1K5gVh-000ELo-Sa; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:30:05 +0200
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:30:05 +0200
From: "Elmar K. Bins" <>
To: Antoin Verschuren <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <B33086268D53A0429A3AA2774C83892C028E1694@KAEVS1.SIDN.local> <> <B33086268D53A0429A3AA2774C83892C028E1696@KAEVS1.SIDN.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B33086268D53A0429A3AA2774C83892C028E1696@KAEVS1.SIDN.local>
Organization: unorganized since 1789
X-Whisky: Knockando, extra old reserve
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Re Antoin, (Antoin Verschuren) wrote:

> > You can't hijack something that does not exist though, which is what I
> > think
> > is the problem here.
> Agree, but when this global list of local DNS policy would exist and used, which would be authoritative, the list or the DNS ? 

That will entirely depend on the degree of adoption ;-)

Honestly, I see the Mozilla guys taking the lead here and probably
establishing a trust model that the actual TLD operators don't want
that way. When established (through upgrade to current Firefoxes),
it will definitely "rule", whatever the TLD operators do, until
an understanding between the supplier of the widespread tool (FF)
and the "autorities" has been established.

Application manufacturers can set de-facto standards if their
product is widespread enough.

The problem I see here - for the TLD operators - is that there are
more applications/manufacturers than available hands at the operators
to make cooperation even possible...



"Hinken ist kein Mangel eines Vergleichs, sondern sollte als wesentliche
 Eigenschaft von Vergleichen angesehen werden."       (Marius Fränzel in desd)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---

DNSOP mailing list