shinonome
2026 年4 月 14 日 21:21
1
可能是因为近期大量二级域名提供商涌入，PSL 已经调整了用户数量的统计规则
已提交 02:47PM - 26 Mar 26 UTC
Updated the user count field in the pull request template to specify 'THOUSANDS … of distinct users' and added clarification regarding the user count criteria for PSL inclusion.
翻译：
指南规定，仅当项目达到至少 2000 至 3000 名独立用户时，才会考虑纳入 PSL。
需要明确的是，“用户”指与请求者存在直接关系、在使用所申请命名空间的子域名时直接参与操作的独立个人数量，而不是访问或与该命名空间交互的受众规模。
请提供该数据，并说明这是当前的实际数值还是估算值。
我个人的理解是：
至少 1000 个用户 → 至少 2000 名独立用户
“用户”的定义从模糊变得更明确：指直接使用所申请子命名空间的独立个人数量。对于二级域名分发来说，基本可以等同于二级域名的数量；与平台整体用户数、其他域名下的用户数、或三级域名用户数（用户的用户）都无关
必须提供当前的实际数据 ，不再接受估算值
历史相关帖：
PSL 这两年收紧得很明显，想把自己的后缀送进列表，首先要搞清楚一件事：你是在为整条互联网的生态链负责。
下面这几点，可以当自查清单来用。
当然，此举也引发了一些争议：
已打开 07:16PM - 12 Mar 26 UTC
The guidelines state that the PRIVATE section exists for "owners of privately-re… gistered domains who themselves issue subdomains to mutually-untrusting parties."
The guidelines also state that "projects not serving more than thousands of users are quite likely to be declined."
These two criteria can create a circular dependency.
For a domain that architecturally functions as a registry — issuing independent subdomains to independent parties with full DNS control — many of the things that would generate "active usage" in the way reviewers measure it (hosted websites, TLS certificates, hosting platform integration) _are themselves gated on PSL inclusion_:
**Hosting platform verification:**
Services that consume the PSL to determine domain ownership boundaries (Vercel, Netlify, etc.) _will treat all subdomains under a non-PSL-listed domain as belonging to a single entity._ Only one user can verify ownership; all subsequent users are blocked.
Cookie isolation: Without PSL inclusion, any subdomain holder can set cookies readable by all other subdomain holders — a security issue that discourages legitimate use.
Certificate issuance: CA rate limits apply per registrable domain as determined by the PSL, constraining independent subdomain owners.
The result: reviewers look at CT logs or hosted sites to gauge usage, find very few, and decline. But the reason there are very few is precisely because the domain isn't on the PSL. The submitter is told to "encourage users to start using the submitted entry" — but users can't fully use it until it's listed.
**So, how should the PSL evaluate PRIVATE section submissions where:**
The domain architecturally meets the stated criteria (independent subdomains, mutually-untrusting parties, independent DNS control per subdomain), and
The low current web-hosting usage is a direct, demonstrable consequence of the domain not being on the PSL?
Is the architectural criterion sufficient, or is demonstrated active web hosting always required regardless of whether the PSL's absence is what's preventing it? If the latter, this should be made explicit in the guidelines, because the current text doesn't state it and the stated purpose of the PRIVATE section implies architectural eligibility.
**For comparison**
Many entries currently in the PRIVATE section were presumably added based on their architecture — that they issue subdomains to independent parties — not because reviewers first counted how many active websites existed under them.
**Were herokuapp.com, pages.dev, vercel.app, netlify.app, azurewebsites.net, etc. all required to demonstrate thousands of actively hosted sites with TLS certificates before being listed?**
_If so, how did their users get hosting platform verification and proper cookie isolation before listing?_
If those entries were added based on architectural merit and the operator's credible commitment to the service, that seems like the right model — and it's a model that would resolve the circular dependency for future submissions too.
**What I'm asking for**
I'm not asking for my specific PR to be reconsidered here. I'm asking for one of:
Acknowledgment that the circular dependency exists and guidance on how submitters in this situation should proceed (e.g., a minimum number of DNS-active subdomains rather than web-hosted sites, or architectural review as an alternative path), or
An explicit policy update stating that demonstrated web-hosting activity is a hard prerequisite regardless of architecture, so that future submitters with similar services know upfront that they need to solve the chicken-and-egg problem by other means before applying.
Either answer would be useful. The current state — where the guidelines describe an architectural criterion but PRs are evaluated on a usage criterion that the guidelines don't state and that PSL absence itself prevents meeting — is unclear and leads to frustrating circular conversations for both submitters and reviewers.
总结整理：
这场争议的核心在于 PSL（Public Suffix List）PRIVATE 区域的准入标准存在“循环依赖”问题 。提问者指出，指南一方面强调 PRIVATE 区域适用于向彼此不信任的用户分发子域名的架构（即“架构符合即可”），另一方面又要求项目必须拥有数千真实用户和明显的使用活跃度。但现实是，很多关键功能（如 Cookie 隔离、托管平台验证、证书签发）本身依赖 PSL 才能正常工作，导致未被收录的项目难以获得用户增长和实际使用，从而又无法满足“活跃度”要求，形成“没有 PSL → 无法发展 → 无法被收录”的死循环。
社区中的维护者则普遍持相反观点，认为 PSL 收录应该是项目成熟后的结果，而不是帮助项目成长的工具 。他们强调，项目应先证明自身的稳定性、可信度和真实用户基础，即使在没有 PSL 的情况下也应能够运行和发展；甚至认为“能在不依赖 PSL 的情况下正常运作”本身就是成熟度的重要信号。同时，一些维护者还提到，历史经验让他们能够通过多种“信号”（如用户规模、实际用途、动机等）判断项目是否值得收录，而不仅仅依赖单一标准。
争议进一步升级在于 标准不一致或不透明 ：提问者认为当前实际执行中存在三套互相矛盾的标准——文档中的“架构标准”、审核中的“使用量标准”、以及讨论中提出的“无需 PSL 也能运行的成熟度标准”，但官方并未明确说明哪一条才是硬性要求。这种模糊性让提交者感到困惑，也导致反复拉扯的沟通。
此外，还有一些补充观点：部分开发者认为这种机制实际上会迫使项目在缺乏关键安全特性的情况下运行，从而带来风险；也有人质疑 PSL 作为中心化列表在安全机制中的角色，提出应由 DNS 等机制替代。维护者则回应称 PSL 的存在本身就是为了解决 DNS 无法表达策略的问题，同时出于列表体积和维护成本考虑，必须对收录进行限制。
这场争议本质上是 “架构合理性 vs. 实际使用规模”优先级之争，以及 PSL 是否应作为“门槛”还是“助推器”的理念冲突 。
14 个赞
James
2026 年4 月 14 日 23:03
3
挺好的 审核严格也可以防止滥用，但希望一视同仁，不要带有色眼镜看待中国用户
1 个赞
James
2026 年4 月 15 日 04:10
9
暂时不打算申请，用户呼声不大，现在进psl的免费域名也比较多，安心做个小众域名哈哈
1 个赞
DeeDee
2026 年4 月 16 日 03:15
14
摆设一样，以前那个.in在merge的时候也就估算几百号用户，实际申请证书不到几十吧
shinonome
2026 年4 月 17 日 02:19
15
移除会比添加更谨慎，移除意味着用户会失去psl保护，所以一般只有域名过期了或者主动要求，才会移除
看看现在新出的，几乎很难达到这个要求