It appears that Tobias Herkula <tobias.herk...@1und1.de> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >Threat risk: I totally agree the ORG begins with the first label that is not >considered to be a PSD, but at least I want to know if that >decision is based on contractual obligations from ICANN/IANA or only a >business decision by an entity with a very different legal status, >compared to the other. And here a DNS based solution would need to be able to >transport that information. So, a rectification that DMARC >shall only consider the PUBLIC part of the PSL would be enough and easier for >most entities.
If you think the public part of the PSL is "contractual obligations from ICANN/IANA" I have bad news for you. That is not even sort of what it is. It's a combination of info from the domain operators and guesses by the PSL maintainers, with a lot of references to Wikipedia. I know of a lot of entries that are missing, like city 3LDs in Canada. Even for TLDs that have ICANN contracts, there are a lot of entries unrelated to anything in the contract such as the 90 2LDs in .aero that the PSL includes. It also has a lot of stale data. I like this comment: // TODO: Check for updates (expected to be phased out around Q1/2009) The PSL has no way to describe vanity TLDs where every name belongs to the same entity. They are listed as regular TLDs like .com but that isn't correct. The tree walk allows the domain holder to publish its own policy about what its org domain, if any, is. That matches the rest of DMARC. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
