I totally agree with the logic behind the experiment. >From a document point of view, should we not document the 'np' part of the experiment?
"The experiment will also evaluate the effectiveness of the 'np' tag for non-existent subdomains. " Tim On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:54:57 PM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> > > > > wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote: > > > > 3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only > NXDOMAINs > > > > > > The limited feedback during WGLC has been favorable to this. > > > > > > This will require a rather larger change to the document than the other > > > issues, but they are manageable and I believe I have most of the > relevant > > > text > > > from earlier revisions. > > > > > > I think we should include this. > > > > I am much more concerned with adding another tag that can only be used > in a > > PSD-DMARC record. I would be much more open to make a "normative" change > to > > the DMARC tag list (RFC 7489 section 11.4) to define np for any DMARC > > record, than to make this a special case for PSD-DMARC records. > > I agree. My intent is to add the tag to be used experimentally for any > DMARC > record. Part of the experiment is to see if it's useful beyond PSD. > > Scott K > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
