On March 14, 2024 8:38:17 PM UTC, Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:34 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> >> I think this is correct. I think it's obviously enough correct that I'm >> surprised anyone was confused. >> >> Do we know what the theory was that led people to think otherwise? >> >> Seems to me we don't really need this, but maybe there's a reason. >> >> >The reasons given were: > > 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5863#section-4.1 > 2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-7.5 > 3. Neither RFC 7489 nor DMARCbis contain the phrase "CNAME", so if it's > not explicitly mentioned... > >Granted, the first two citations are in regards to DKIM records, not DMARC >records, but those were the reasons given. > Thanks.
CNAMES have been used for DKIM since DKIM has existed. I don't think any of those things say don't use CNAMES. I think we don't need to say anything. Explaining how DNS works is out of scope. This kind of thing is a distraction which makes the document more complex and confusing. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
