Add .pm, .wf, .yt to PSL

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla14

Status

()

Core
Networking: Domain Lists
RESOLVED FIXED
5 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: Peter Kasting, Assigned: gerv)

Tracking

Trunk
mozilla14
x86_64
Windows Vista
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

5 years ago
These are old domains but apparently registration for them opened in December 2011 (?), so we should add PSL entries.

I haven't done enough research yet to write an actual patch.

Comment 1

5 years ago
Thanks Peter.  I have been in touch with registry and we have these submitted from them directly.
Assignee: nobody → jothan

Comment 2

5 years ago
Created attachment 587106 [details] [diff] [review]
Diff Supplied directly from AFNIC

This was submitted to us from AFNIC, the registry.

Comment 3

5 years ago
http://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/5442/show/1st-review-of-the-opening-to-europe-of-the-fr-wf-re-yt-pm-and-tf-tlds.html
(Reporter)

Comment 4

5 years ago
Comment on attachment 587106 [details] [diff] [review]
Diff Supplied directly from AFNIC

There are some problems with this diff.

Minor: "TLD is opened since date" is useless commentary that shouldn't be in the file.

More major: The link on all three is a PR article, not a policy document, the homepage for the registrar, or some other encyclopedic resource.  Worse, this document merely says these domains are "subject to the same rules as FR" but our PSL entry for FR shows many domains in addition to just "fr".  So the waters are muddy on what's actually supported.

Comment 5

5 years ago
I'll tighten this up.
(Assignee)

Comment 6

5 years ago
Jothan: were you able to get more details here?

Gerv
(Assignee)

Comment 7

5 years ago
pkasting: what should we do here? Half a loaf is better than no bread; should we stick the base domains into the list to help Chrome, and refine the entries as and when we get more of an idea of what the substructure is?

Gerv
(Reporter)

Comment 8

5 years ago
I'm not opposed to checking in the base domains with comments noting that the actual policies are unclear and we probably need a more authoritative list.
(Assignee)

Comment 9

5 years ago
Created attachment 603213 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.2

Here's a diff with improved formatting and links to a more authoritative document. As far as I can see, these domains have no sub-structure.

Gerv
Assignee: jothan → gerv
Attachment #587106 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #603213 - Flags: review?(pkasting)
(Reporter)

Comment 10

5 years ago
Comment on attachment 603213 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.2

Looks good
Attachment #603213 - Flags: review?(pkasting) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 11

5 years ago
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/edfcadccf600

Gerv
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/edfcadccf600
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla14
Version: unspecified → Trunk
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.