On December 7, 2021 5:00:58 PM UTC, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
>It appears that Todd Herr <todd.h...@valimail.com> said:
>>-=-=-=-=-=-
>>I've been engaged in a spirited off-list discussion regarding the topic of
>>relaxed alignment and the idea of a required relationship between two
>>domains in relaxed alignment. I won't reveal the other party in the
>>discussion, but I thought it best to bring the topic to the list to get
>>consensus and clarity.
>>
>>The question central to the debate I'm having is this:
>>
>>Given example.com as the Organizational Domain, are a.b.c.example.com and
>>d.e.f.example.com in relaxed alignment?
>
>Yes, of course.
>
>>My partner in the off-list discussion maintains that other text in RFC 7489
>>makes clear that the domains must have an hierarchical relationship (i.e.,
>>one must be a subdomain of the other)
>
>That's not what it says. The examples happen to be subdomains but the spec
>is the text, not the examples.
>
>>Further, it seems to be the most common use case for relaxed alignment to
>>be accomplished with domains that have a direct descendant relationship
>>with each other, not just the common ancestor of the organizational domain.
>
>That's not unreasonable, but it would be a change, and I don't see any
>advantage
>compared to leaving the current rule alone.
Agreed. Examples are only that. People need to implement the rules as
written, not assume if their code gets the examples right that means it's
correct (which is my wild speculation about what happened).
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
