Robert,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:52 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for this document. A few minor clarifying comments that may help > this > document: > > o Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively > Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489]. They control > all subdomains of the tree. These are effectively private > domains, but listed in the current public suffix list. They are > treated as Public for DMARC purposes. They require the same > protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently > unable to benefit from DMARC. > > I found this paragraph confusing. In "These are effectively private > domains", > it wasn't clear to me what "these" refers to. Is it the domains or the > subdomains. Otherwise it says "these are effectively" twice, with two > different descriptions. Perhaps, check if this paragraph can be reworded > to > make it clearer. How about instead of "These are effectively private domains, but listed in the current public suffix list." to "Branded PSDs are private domains currently listing in the public suffix list." Would that work? > > These > issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since they (e.g., the > ".gov.example" used above) do not typically send mail. > > I presume that this means that emails are not directly sent from > @gov.example, > rather than there is no mail below .gov.example. Perhaps worth clarifying? > Would this clarify things better? "These issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since the PSD itself (e.g., the ".gov.example" used above) does not typically send mail. " > > For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there > is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records. This > is a broader definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020]. > > I presume that this means that there is no response for any of A, AAAA and > MX > records, not that there is no response for a particular type of record. > Should > this be clarified? Although arguably it seems pretty obvious. > > I think adding more here will muddy the waters. I am willing to be swayed. tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
