On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:19 AM Ralf Weber <d...@fl1ger.de> wrote:
> Moin! > > On 18 Apr 2023, at 15:54, Benjamin Schwartz wrote: > > If the suberror field is mainly for communication from resolvers to > > browsers, then any solution should only move forward if it's satisfactory > > to both camps. I can't speak for either one, but I think the > localization > > problem sounds easier than the categorization problem. I can also > imagine > > using something like a URN scheme registry to punt categorization out to > > one or more third parties. > > If all fails free text would be fine by me, but I’d prefer technical > schemes. > I’m not sure how delegation of an URN scheme works, can you elaborate how > this > works? I'm far from an expert on URNs, but I imagine we (DNSOP) would specify that the "filtered category" in the response is a URN, and leave it at that. Then if the Internet Advertising Bureau wanted to make their Content Taxonomy [1] available for this use*, they would register a new URN Namespace via IANA procedures, resulting in a string like "urn:adbureau:taxonomy:content:3.0:624", which is the unique ID for "Technology & Computing > Computing > Internet > Internet for Beginners" in Content Taxonomy 3.0. Filtering engines could report categories as any URN (or URNs?) that matches their internal filtering decisions. Clients could incorporate support for any URN namespaces that they deem relevant, with appropriate localization. > Are there requirements for the third parties? > RFC 8141 Sections 6.2 and 6.3 describe the procedure. In short, it is IANA Expert Review, with special deference to other standards bodies. --Ben [1] https://iabtechlab.com/standards/content-taxonomy/ * This would probably be a terrible idea, since that taxonomy is designed for a totally different purpose.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
