Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques-02.txt

2023-07-19 Thread Paul Vixie
John Levine wrote on 2023-07-19 14:43: It appears that Paul Wouters said: On Jul 17, 2023, at 22:50, Paul Vixie wrote: ... RFC 4408 was folly. ... The IETF did make a mistake there for sure. I wouldn't disagree, but you can barely see the spots in the dirt where the barn was before

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques-02.txt

2023-07-19 Thread John Levine
It appears that Paul Wouters said: >On Jul 17, 2023, at 22:50, Paul Vixie >wrote: >> >>  >> >>> Agreed, but that horse had already left the barn when we published the >>> first SPF RFC 4408. >> RFC 4408 was folly. TXT in a subdomain (RFC 5507 s3.2) would suit domain >> verification well

Re: [DNSOP] should all ccTLD be on the Public Suffix list?

2023-07-19 Thread Paul Wouters
On Jul 19, 2023, at 01:54, Paul Vixie wrote: > >  > > George Michaelson wrote on 2023-07-18 22:41: >> ... >> my concerns with the PSL governance aren't relevant either. I am sure >> it was purposeful. I don't have to like things for them to provide >> upsides. > > when we've tried to talk

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] should all ccTLD be on the Public Suffix list?

2023-07-19 Thread Paul Hoffman
Why is this discussion here and not on the PSL mailing list (https://groups.google.com/g/publicsuffix-discuss)? Having it there would greatly increase the chance that the discussion would actually help the PSL. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list

Re: [DNSOP] should all ccTLD be on the Public Suffix list?

2023-07-19 Thread Peter Thomassen
On 7/19/23 02:42, George Michaelson wrote: So, given it exists, systems are coded to behave against it, and not having SOME ccTLD (and I would posit gTLD) on it, means they don't match as "first class citizens" the behaviour the PSL brings. Actually, the PSL matching algorithm is such that

Re: [DNSOP] should all ccTLD be on the Public Suffix list?

2023-07-19 Thread Dr Eberhard W Lisse
What you also missed (in the original post (not quoted any longer)) is that there is a distinction between the ISO "list" and the list of delegations. I agree that there should be a delegation corresponding to EVERY 2 Letter Code Element but that is not the case (and I don't see that changing

Re: [DNSOP] should all ccTLD be on the Public Suffix list?

2023-07-19 Thread George Michaelson
Joe, it's clear I didn't understand and I've been hit with quite enough cluesticks for today. I missed the wildcards in my parse and having accounted for them I now see reality as it is. George On Wed, 19 July 2023, 19:26 Joe Abley, wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 02:42, George Michaelson >

Re: [DNSOP] should all ccTLD be on the Public Suffix list?

2023-07-19 Thread Joe Abley
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:26, Joe Abley <[jab...@strandkip.nl](mailto:On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:26, Joe Abley < wrote: > Not all TLDs have the same kind of policy boundary (if they did, arguably we > would not > need the PSL). Whoops. Joe___

Re: [DNSOP] should all ccTLD be on the Public Suffix list?

2023-07-19 Thread Joe Abley
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 02:42, George Michaelson <[g...@algebras.org](mailto:On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 02:42, George Michaelson < wrote: > I know, I could submit these to the PSL website directly. I think anybody can submit anything they want, but the PSL volunteers have quite a strict set of