Would you please provide a specific example where this would be needed? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by resource record names that is not a DNS domain.
Scott K On November 3, 2021 10:53:07 AM UTC, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: >The tree walk should address whether we do anything for domain-part names >that are resource record names rather than DNS domains. Such names cannot >be given a _dmarc. subdomain, so they cannot be given an exact-match DMARC >policy. > >Always doing a one-level walk from the bottom would ensure that they can >have a policy at the closest possible layer. > >On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 10:09 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> It appears that Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> said: >> >4. Common parent domain not marked PSD. We could add a new tag to the >> DMARC >> >records for PSDs to indicate it's a PSD, so it's record shouldn't be used >> for >> >alignment. Getting this added to the literal handful of PSD records that >> >exist and specifying it should be used going forward is doable. To >> implement >> >this approach should produce identical (modulo PSL errors and omissions) >> >results to the RFC 7489 approach. It seems like we've decided to trust >> that >> >ICANN and ccTLD operators will effectively manage publication of PSL >> records >> >for policy discovery, so this leverages that trust to simplify alignment >> while >> >maintaining backward compatibility. >> >> This is a much better worked out version of my DNS tree climbing >> proposal. I like it too. >> >> R's, >> John >> >> PS: Just out of nosiness, what PSD records exist now? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
