Minified/customisable version of the PSL

[wdhdev]

Would it be worth offering a minified version of the PSL? It would be good for companies that use the PSL but do not need any comments or anything and just want the rules.

So basically just offering a version of the PSL without any comments.

[wdhdev]

I've created a quick script which produces a minified version of the PSL here: https://github.com/wdhdev/psl-min

You can download the minified file from https://psl.hrsn.dev/public_suffix_list.min.dat.

If the maintainers want, they can make this an official version and we can move it to a URL like https://publicsuffix.org/list/public_suffix_list.min.dat.

[weppos]

Would it be worth offering a minified version of the PSL? It would be good for companies that use the PSL but do not need any comments or anything and just want the rules.

So basically just offering a version of the PSL without any comments.

It's one extra source to maintain, and I can't see a lot of value to produce it on our side. It's very easy to transform the list in whatever format you want.

Moreover, different languages/applications may use a different approach for minification or optimization. In many cases, an extra transformation is still needed to compile the list into something more optimized (many consumers concerned about performance have that intermediate step).

Adding one extra minified version will add extra maintenance overhead for very little gain.

My 2 cents.

[wdhdev]

It's one extra source to maintain, and I can't see a lot of value to produce it on our side. It's very easy to transform the list in whatever format you want.

That is true, however I believe if it was implemented it would receive quite a bit of use as most people are not using, nor relying on the comments in the file. The comments in the file increase the file size by over 55%.

Moreover, different languages/applications may use a different approach for minification or optimization. In many cases, an extra transformation is still needed to compile the list into something more optimized (many consumers concerned about performance have that intermediate step).

This is true, however for some basic level consumers who are using a mostly unmodified version of the PSL, it could be helpful.

A bit unrelated, it could be worth deploying separate ICANN and Private section only files, which I know would benefit some consumers, as I know some only want ICANN section TLDs, while others just want Private section domains.

[mozfreddyb]

To be honest, I would actually prefer we go into another direction and move to a better, more expressive format that goes beyond comments where we have better metadata in the entries as dictionaries (json maybe?) so that we can extend the flags in the future. We could still provide the dat as a compile-artifact, but eventually I can see us opening this up the other way around.

[wdhdev]

If we were going to use JSON, it might be a good idea to have individual JSON files for each individual company listed on the PSL (at least in the repo for easy editing) but then combining them all into one huge file on the web server.

I've deployed a JSON version of the PSL here (https://github.com/wdhdev/psl-json): https://psl.hrsn.dev/public_suffix_list.json

[weppos]

To be honest, I would actually prefer we go into another direction and move to a better, more expressive format that goes beyond comments where we have better metadata in the entries as dictionaries (json maybe?) so that we can extend the flags in the future. We could still provide the dat as a compile-artifact, but eventually I can see us opening this up the other way around.

100% agreed, we have discussed about this in the past. If we have to add an additional format/version, I'd rather use something more expressive and more conveniently parsable.

[wdhdev]

JSON would definitely be a better option, it's much easier to parse as you say.

[dnsguru]

Going with other, more expressive formats should allow us to revisit the core purpose of inclusion.

The core problem the PSL solves is one where there is clearly a need:

A] for domain operators to articulate their preference on how the internet should expect to engage with their namespace; and,

B] for the internet to engage with domain names with more elegance than available in the DNS.

In a perfect world, (and please understand there is no current plan or resourcing to go this route) the intake would have very specific questions asked per domain entry, like will it have subdomains or not, are unaffiliated third parties going to operate those subdomains or are they to be considered all part of the requester's use, should it be possible to issue a wildcard cert or not, should cookies be allowed at the domain or not, and same for levels below.

There could then be for-purpose versions of the list for consumer/integrators in different report formats, and generation options, such as "include/skip comment lines" or "include/exclude private section"

Based upon submitter answers, each purpose might include or exclude domains
to of entries for-purpose to allow a more detailed capture of intention, and numerous formats could be supported.

[wdhdev]

A lot of what you've said there could definitely be doable with little resourcing, simply even could be done via a small API.

e.g. A request to https://publicsuffix.org/list/public_suffix_list.dat?exclude_comments=true would return a version of the PSL without comments. This sort of basic formatting could be easily done via a static web page with client side JS.