Joe, it's clear I didn't understand and I've been hit with quite enough cluesticks for today.
I missed the wildcards in my parse and having accounted for them I now see reality as it is. George On Wed, 19 July 2023, 19:26 Joe Abley, <jab...@strandkip.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 02:42, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org > <On+Wed,+Jul+19,+2023+at+02:42,+George+Michaelson+%3C%3Ca+href=>> wrote: > > I know, I could submit these to the PSL website directly. > > > I think anybody can submit anything they want, but the PSL volunteers have > quite a strict set of internal guidelines for what they will accept. See > https://publicsuffix.org/submit/ for some details. I have helped some > TLDs with the github dancing required to maintain their data before and my > experience is that these guidelines are taken seriously. > > The following ccTLD are in ISO3166 but not in the PSL: > > > Many of the domains you mention are in fact included in the PSL but the > policy boundary is not directly below the top-level label. There's a policy > boundary below com.bd and net.bd, for example, but not directly below bd, > and this is reflected in the current list. Not all TLDs have the same > kind of policy boundary (if they did, arguably we would need the PSL). > > Of the remaining domains most are not active, which means in practical > terms there is no policy to publish, so the gap in the PSL seems entirely > accurate. For example bq is present on iso 3166-2 but is not delegated from > the root zone. > > The only TLD from your list that is delegated and doesn't seem to publish > a policy in the PSL is er. It seems hard to find definitive policy about > registration under er in general, not just on the PSL, so again perhaps the > PSL is reflecting reality quite accurately. > > Operationally, much though I dislike the PSL (for entirely subjective > reasons I might add,mostly around governance and ancient history) it > exists, no matter what I think about it. So, given it exists, systems > are coded to behave against it, and not having SOME ccTLD (and I would > posit gTLD) on it, means they don't match as "first class citizens" > the behaviour the PSL brings. > > > Checking the list you included in this message seems to suggest that all > ccTLDs that have policy to publish have already done so. Unless I > misunderstand you, it doesn't seem like there is a problem here to solve. > > > Joe >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
