On November 6, 2018 7:17:10 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
>On Mon 05/Nov/2018 07:23:08 +0100 Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>>> I'd like to recommend that we (DMARC-WG) accept
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kitterman-dmarc-psd-00
>>> into our work queue. It aligns with our charter already.
>>
>> I've seen three agreements and no objections, so here's an official
>> call for objections. If there are none by 16 November, we will
>create
>> draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-00 as a new working group item.
>
>
>Can we have a brief discussion on what exactly is the purpose of the
>I-D?
>
>At a first glance, it seems an attempt to override the Public Suffix
>List with
>a IANA registry. The PSL is based on IANA root zones, taking into
>account PSO
>policies. So, we're requiring PSOs to register their email policies at
>IANA,
>while their web policies will continue to be "registered" at PSL. Does
>that
>sound somewhat curious or is it me?
Only in a very limited sense. DMARC currently stops at the organizational
domain. This sets up processing and structure for the limited cases where
DMARC 'above' the organizational domain makes sense.
To pick one notional example (real domains, but not reflective of any knowledge
of domain owner plans or policies):
Why shouldn't Google be able to assert DMARC policy over subdomains of .google
the same way it does over .google.com? Currently they can't and this draft
provides policy and mechanism for them to do so if they want.
Does that clarify it for you?
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
