Subject: [Dbound] Status?

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:48:37 +0200

In March a design team was created and I am wondering whether the
attempt to make progress behind closed doors killed this effort.

What's the status?

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:23:24 +0000

The design team had some sporadic exchanges and then a conference call in
June.  At IETF 90 (July) there was an off-site bar BoF held with about 15
people present.  The bar BoF was more than the design team.

My estimation is that there isn’t a consensus on what needs to be solved.
I stress the word consensus because there are various issues that deserve
to be addressed.  There is some feeling that the issues can be combined
together, there are other feelings that “this is not clear.”  It’s not a
matter so much of debate but that “it hasn’t come together.”

One of the themes is whether or how much of this is going to be an
improvement (as in scalability) of what the Public Suffix List provides
today.  That theme though is more of a “once we know what we want to
solve, how do we do it” than a unifying theme for the various issues.

Another point (I won’t even make this a theme) was that a solution (again
with the solution and not the problem) could boil to “are A and B
equivalent with respect to C”, where A and B are identifiers - domains or
domain names, and C is some relationship probably related to a security
“question”.  Equivalence is not meant to be “the same” but “treated the
same” or “seen the same as.”  The usefulness of this observation though
hinges on what needs to be solved.

In the past day or so, DBound crossed my mind and I think (sometimes I
elect not to send messages at the last moment) I asked what has come from
the bar BoF.  There were notes recorded, come to think of it, I don’t know
if they made it to the list.

Hopefully this message will seed some threads on what needs to be
solved…there were others in the bar BoF that seemed closer to an epiphany
than me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 14:48
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Dbound] Status?

What's the status?

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:06:48 -0400

> attempt to make progress behind closed doors killed this effort.
I wasn't part of the design team, but I participated in the bar BoF in
Toronto, which Ed referred to.  The notes are posted here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dbound/current/msg00077.html

As Ed alluded to, the big issue we came up with at the bar BoF was that the
problem statement(s) needed to be defined.  Four individuals volunteered
contribute to this effort, noted at the tail end of the notes.  I am one of
those individuals.  I've had my hands full since the IETF but had plans to
begin using the notes to outline something in the next week or so to bring
to the others.

Cheers,
Casey

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Aug 2014 03:52:00 -0000

>begin using the notes to outline something in the next week or so to bring

I'm one of the four people and I'm on the design team, and I'm as
swamped as Casey.

To expand on what Ed said, our issues are mostly not technical.  We
have a bunch of rather different problems that currently use the
Public Suffix List as a better-than-nothing solution.  Different
problems lead to different technical approaches, many of which people
have outlined. The problems are different enough that I doubt we can
come up with a single technical proposal that is better than PSL for
all or even most of them.

Beyond that we have some purely policy questions, notably whether the
PSL-like info is published directly by the affected domains, by some
entity related to them in a technical way, e.g. the TLD for lower
level domains, or by a third party as the PSL is.  There's nothing
technical about these questions; they're entirely about who has the
authority to speak for whom.

R's,
John

---

From: Jeffrey Walton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 00:11:54 -0400

> authority to speak for whom.
Would it be possible to offer a few use cases? It might help with
sorting out the different problems (and make sure the different
problems are properly represented). If a problem does not have a use
case, then it might not really be a problem ;)

For example, suppose someone would like to quickly test a URI or FQDN
before consulting a more authoritative reference. The quick test can
be thought of as a "preflight" test, before a network query is
engaged.

Jeff

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Aug 2014 00:52:54 -0400

> case, then it might not really be a problem ;)

We have plenty of use cases, and most of the problems are from existing 
applications.  There's a list of 11 of them in Casey's notes that Andrew 
sent out at the end of July.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.