I must agree with Mr Levine on this. tim
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 1:00 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> said: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >This was reported but not sent to the WG. I believe the right disposition > >is "Hold for Document Update". Does anyone want to argue for "Rejected" > or > >"Verified"? > > Reject it. Whether you choose to believe the non-ICANN part of the PSL is > local policy. > > I also think that Scott's example in the notes is wrong. It is perfectly > plasuble for an operator's customers to have their own DMARC policy, > although most > of the subdomains are less exotic than this one. Try Centralic's us.com > where I think you would not want foo.us.com and bar.us.com to share the > same default policy. > > R's, > John > > >---------- Forwarded message --------- > >From: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >Date: Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 4:31 PM > >Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (6729) > >To: <superu...@gmail.com>, <zwi...@yahoo-inc.com>, < > rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> > >Cc: <sc...@kitterman.com>, <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > > > > > >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7489, > >"Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)". > > > >-------------------------------------- > >You may review the report below and at: > >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6729 > > > >-------------------------------------- > >Type: Technical > >Reported by: Scott Kitterman <sc...@kitterman.com> > > > >Section: 3.2 > > > >Original Text > >------------- > > 3. Search the public suffix list for the name that matches the > > largest number of labels found in the subject DNS domain. Let > > that number be "x". > > > >Corrected Text > >-------------- > > 3. Search the ICANN DOMAINS section of the public suffix list for > > the name that matches the largest number of labels found in the > > subject DNS domain. Let that number be "x". > > > >Notes > >----- > >The PSL includes both public and private domains. RFC 7489 should have > >limited name matching to the public, ICANN DOMAINS section of the PSL. As > >an example, using the current PSL, the organizational domain for > >example.s3.dualstack.ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com is > >example.s3.dualstack.ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com, not amazonaws.com > since > >it is listed in the private section of the PSL. This is clearly the wrong > >result. > > > >Instructions: > >------------- > >This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > >use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > >can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > >-------------------------------------- > >RFC7489 (draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-12) > >-------------------------------------- > >Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and > >Conformance (DMARC) > >Publication Date : March 2015 > >Author(s) : M. Kucherawy, Ed., E. Zwicky, Ed. > >Category : INFORMATIONAL > >Source : INDEPENDENT > >Area : N/A > >Stream : INDEPENDENT > >Verifying Party : ISE & Editorial Board > > > >-=-=-=-=-=- > >[Alternative: text/html] > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
