Kurt You are absolutely correct. We were having such discussions about the PSL origins that I was going back over the DMARC spec and refreshing my memory on how the PSL was defined and used. I wasn't even looking at the PSD document.
Tim On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:46 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:58 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Scott >> >> PSD DMARC does talk about organizational domains which from the original >> DMARC spec (section 3.2) >> does say 'Acquire a "public suffix" list' >> >> The addition of the preamble text shouldn't move the document in either >> direction. >> I do feel anything which helps focus us on moving forward on DMARC-bis is >> a good thing. >> The WG should be able to start writing the PSL document right away. >> > > Tim, > > I think that you are being too liberal in applying transitive references. > The PSD document only refers to the PSL in > > - Informative References > - Appendix A.1 > - Appendix B.3 > - Appendix C.2 (implementations) > > I don't think that it is fair to say that anyone who refers to the org > domain concept as cited in the DMARC spec is necessarily invoking the PSL. > > I do have a problem with the conflation of the org domain with a > super-organizational "realm" (?) that may impose conditions upon > organizations that fall within their jurisdictional purview. My main > concerns are with the potential usurpation of the org domain's policy > declaration rights. "Moving" the org domain up one level disenfranchises > the organizations and that is the wrong thing to do IMO. > > As to the proposed "let's run this as an experiment pending DMARCbis", I > don't see how that satisfies Dave's concern about creating new work for > receivers in order to help a small set of domain (realm) owners. I'm not > opposed to it, but I just don't see how this solves the issue. > > --Kurt >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
