Can we eliminate the PSL problem simply by adding some DNS queries? Isn't there a maximum depth to the PSL, so that the evaluator can simply walk up the top N levels of the domain tree to find either an organizational DMARC entry with sp= or a PSD DMARC entry with sp=? It looks like currently, n=4, because the published suffixes appear to extend to 3 levels.
DF ---------------------------------------- From: Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> Sent: 11/11/20 8:43 AM To: John Levine <jo...@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org Cc: dotz...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] On splitting documents and DBOUND On 11/10/2020 6:24 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article > <caj4xoyfuu531rmmhsy4va3kq5sn4pzv91qeegzivf5_abjn...@mail.gmail.com> you > write: >> This actually makes sense because there are other potential documents/uses >> besides DMARC that could reference PSL-type mechanisms. > > Remember that this is a well-known swamp of despair. We had a whole > DBOUND working group that failed to define a PSL-like thing. > > I am inclined to do nothing at this point, and if someday we actually > succeed in doing DBOUND, whateever we define can update 7489bis to say > to use it. There is a difference between "splitting out existing text, on topic x" from "revise text on topic x". The current suggestion is to take the org domain text that is current in the DMARC spec and to split it out, so that the core DMARC spec does not contain specification language about organization domain, other than "find the organizational domain". That's a documentation hack, making later changes easier, rather than a current attempt to devise better OD specification. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ 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
