It appears that Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> said: >I don't think this is really suitable for DNSOP. > >The big challenge with this category of proposals is semantic: what >does it mean to be part of a set? There are many different kinds of >relationships between domains and organizations, and so two domains >might be "the same organization" for some purposes but not others. >DNSOP is probably not the place to establish any kind of taxonomy like >that. ...
If we take this up at all, it'd need a small focused WG since it has aspects of DNS and TLS and CAs and more. The DBOUND WG a decade ago tried to address the same owner question as well as the owner boundary problem and failed at both. While I think the approach in this draft is technically plausible, I would want to see evidence that there is significant interest from people who would use it. And also that they would want to use it in a form that says these N domains have the same owner, but no hint about who that owner is. R's, John PS: Alternative proposal, put something in RDAP. Not asserting that's a great idea. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
