Subject: [dbound] public/private vs. policy domain (comments on draft-deccio-domain-name-relationships-00)

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:45:10 -0400

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:53 PM, =JeffH <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> overall, I am curious about the focus on "public" vs "private" in
> draft-deccio-domain-name-relationships-00, and how the latter doc might
> relate to draft-sullivan-dbound-problem-statement-00 [0] ?
>

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for looking this over and providing comments.  In this response, I
address the above concern, which is the basis of many of your comments.  If
I understand correctly, there is a misunderstanding that the
domain-name-relationships draft is attempting to align scope (i.e.,
public/private) with policy or even establish an equivalence between the
two.  If that misunderstanding is the case, let me clear that up.  The
purpose of the draft is to establish background: domain name concepts,
including namespace and scope; known policy use of domain names; current
use of the PSL to perform policy functions based on scope.  However, it is
not meant to draw an equivalence between scope (or any other name/namespace
concept for that matter) and policy domain.  See, for example, section 3,
which discusses policy relationships within scope and across scope
boundaries.  In other words, it recognizes that scope exists, and that
scope boundaries are being used for policy purposes (e.g., based on the
PSL's definition of scope), but its intent is not to advocate policy
relationships based on scope or namespace.

Regards,
Casey