- From: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:08:16 +0100
- To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
- CC: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-web-security <public-web-security@w3.org>
On 10/05/12 14:40, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:08:16AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: >> On 08/05/12 17:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >>> For instance, the current list has a large number of entries of >>> domains held by Dyn (my employer), but not a list of similar entries >>> for at least some names offered by freedns.afraid.org. We now know >>> that ICANN has at least 1200 pending applications for TLDs, which >>> they'll be awarding in batches starting some time in the next year; >>> the policies under all of those will also need to be reflected in the >>> publicsuffix list. >> >> Not so; only if they offer non-flat registration, i.e. they implement >> some sort of subdomain structure. > > Adding only the one label itself is still reflecting those policies, > no? Because of the backwardly-compatible way implementations are encouraged to behave when they detect a suffix not present in the PSL, a PSL entry like this: // New ".suffix" domain suffix ...is the same as no entry at all. A PSL entry is only required for proper operation, in most contexts, (Chrome may disagree given the way they use it for determining what's a domain and what's a search term) if there is a more complicated sub-structure than that. > Someone is going to have to look at all of them and make a > decision. Yes; or the domain owners are going to have to tell us. > I understand and appreciate the work that has gone into the > publicsuffix list, and I think it was an important step in addressing > some pretty serious problems. But I don't see how it scales, given > that it already has maintenance problems before the planned increase > in the root zone size. I am not arguing that the status quo is awesome :-) I am just pointing out that the problem is not (quite) as bad as you suggest. If the PSL were replaced by a worldwide agreement to encode the info in the DNS, in a way which was harvestable to produce a legacy PSL and also directly queryable, I think I might do a little dance of happiness. Gerv
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 15:08:48 UTC