Subject: Re: [Dbound] Draft problem statement and IETF "bar BoF"

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 16:31:18 -0800

On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:36:30 -0500, Andreww Sullivan said:
 > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:21:49PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote:
 >>
 >> I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not so clear on why we are labeling
 >> domains as public or private.
 >
 > Your concern is precisely why, in my previous stabs at this, I have
 > attempted to avoid that.  It's the wrong classification, IMO, even if
 > it's a useful rule of thumb sometimes; and too much confusion has
 > resulted from trying to use it.

+1

 > Instead, we should be looking for a way of grouping identifiers
 > according to other classifications.  The motivating stuff in the
 > earlier I-Ds I wrote or worked on with Jeff is there to explain why
 > the DNS hierarchy is _not_ the right classification, despite the
 > attempts in the past to use it.

agreed.

e.g. please see..

Asserting DNS Administrative Boundaries Within DNS Zones
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-domain-policy-authority-01

..section 1 "Introduction and Motivation".

 > Unfortunately, to my way of thinking, people who have running code
 > that is already based on the faulty reading of the hierarchy are
 > unlikely to change that enough to work with new arbitrary groupings.
 > Moreover, there's the additional problem that allowing arbitrary links
 > out of hierarchy will potentially explode the data that clients have
 > to pay attention to, and nobody is enthusiastic about that.

..which are considerations to keep in mind as we explore use cases, 
requirements, and potential solutions...

HTH,

=JeffH