Subject: [Dbound] The meaning of an entry in PSL and possible semantics for Dbound solutions

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:58:36 -0500

Hi

I have been thinking about what are the semantics for Dbound like system. 

What I have come up with as draft semantics when comparing names like three.two.one.example to two.one.example 
are  “Same organization”, 
       “Unrelated”, 
       “Related but sets own policies” 
etc. 

All the entries in PSL are for “Unrelated” situations. 

The current draft of the charter propagates the myth that these are the only places where “registrations or delegations” can occur, 

Here is my stab at rewording the beginning of paragraph 5: 

    Currently the most well known solution in existence is the Public Suffix 
    List (PSL). The PSL is maintained by a Web Browser producer and is kept 
    current by volunteers on best-effort basis. It contains a list of points 
- in the hierarchical namespace at which registrations take place, and is
- used to identify the boundary between so-called "public" names (below which
- registrations can occur) and the private names (i.e., organizational names)
- below them.
 +  in the hierarchical namespace, at where entities with no organizational relationship to parent
 +  can get names delegated (i..e. commonly known as registrations). 

I really do not like calling names public or private, it has the wrong 
implications. I think the “Public” in PSL name is a statement of publication not implication of
associations. 
If you agree that this is better wording then the second half of this paragraph can
be reworded. 

   Olafur

---

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:20:58 -0500

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> The current draft of the charter propagates the myth that these are the
> only places where “registrations or delegations” can occur,
>

I (personally) don't get that impression from reading the text: "[The PSL]
contains a list of points... at which registrations take place".  Note that
because it reads "a list" instead of "the list", it doesn't come off as
definitive to me.

...
> implications.

There have been some concerns about using the terms "public" and
"private".  Regardless of whether or not those are the "right" terms, the
terms would need to be more formally defined for consistent usage and
reference.  However, for the purposes of the charter, some contextual
definitions have been added parenthetically to explain/define the PSL
itself, whose name is already established.

> I think the “Public” in PSL name is a statement of publication not
> implication of
> associations.
>

As you mentioned earlier, the "public/private" boundary drawn by the PSL is
in fact an assertion of non-associations (for the purposes of policy).
However, in many cases, that is sufficient (i.e., ruling out is/can be part
of the process of identifying or dismissing an association).

Casey

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:18:04 -0500

>        “Related but sets own policies” 

There are lots of possible meanings.  In general, the point is to say
(1) that names are related in some way and (2) what the relation is.
The first proposals we have (from John on the one hand and Jeff and I
on the other) are "same policy boundary", but there certainly could be
others.  An obvious example of this would be, "treat as aliases for
one another," which would do what one wants for "variants"; but we
don't have such a proposal now.

> All the entries in PSL are for “Unrelated” situations. 

I think this is a useful point: the PSL basically assumes that
parent-child relationships are related, and then makes a list of
non-related cases.  So there's an inclusion-based or exclusion based
distnction that is worth keeping in mind.  I don't think that needs to
be in the charter, but it might be helpful for our thinking.

> The current draft of the charter propagates the myth that these are the only places where “registrations or delegations” can occur, 

I don't understand why you say that.  The charter's _point_ is that
the existing system is broken.

>  +  can get names delegated (i..e. commonly known as registrations). 

The proposed change suggests that delegation is a relevant issue for
this.  It isn't.  Delegation is fully irrelevant to this problem, and
that's part of the confusion.

> I really do not like calling names public or private, it has the wrong 

Too bad.  That's the term people have been using, so the charter needs
to reflect that.  I think any WG product should certainly try to
replace the public/private distinction with something more
sophisticated, but the charter should definitely start from the place
people are coming from.

 I think the “Public” in PSL name is a statement of publication not implication of
> associations. 

I don't understand that sentence.

> If you agree that this is better wording then the second half of this paragraph can

I do not think it is an improvement, as I suggest above.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]