Domain Boundaries 2.0 Problem Statement

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 September 2023.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Working off of the earlier problem statement [I-D.sullivan-dbound-problem-statement], which we still consider valid.¶

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. DNS terminology is as described in [RFC8499].¶

Appendix A. Previous Use Cases

The use cases which involve use of the public suffix list, summarized from the initial problem statement:¶

• HTTP State management cookies¶

• User interface indicators¶

• Setting the document.domain property¶

• Email authentication mechanisms¶

• SSL and TLS certificates¶

• HSTS and Public Key Pinning¶

• Linking domains together¶

While all of these are very important to solve, part of the issue with the first attempt to address this was overreaching goals. The suggestion is to initially limit the list to a subset, such as these:¶

• HTTP State management cookies¶

• SSL and TLS certificates¶

• HSTS and Public Key Pinning¶

Appendix B. Replicating the Public Suffix List

A main topic that immediately arises from this discussion is the replacement of the Public Suffix List (PSL). What does need to be quantified and understood is the 1) workload needed to update the PSL; 2) how much time is involved with technical escalations; and 3) the quality of the existing data in the PSL. Creating an IANA registry to track such changes could incur a large workload demand upon IANA staff, and this will need to be understood.¶

Appendix C. Solution Space is a Problem Space

The problem requires solutions which are both static lists and DNS zone data that can be enumerated. Both must be addressed in understanding the problem.¶

Appendix D. Security Considerations

None at this time.¶

Appendix E. IANA Considerations

None at this time.¶

Appendix F. Acknowledgements

The author leans heavily on the initial problem statement and thanks Andrew Sullivan, John Levine, Murray Kucherawy and Paul Vixie for comments and suggestions.¶

Appendix G. Appendix

Acknowledgements

Author's Address