On 1/29/2022 1:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
So going
back to Dave's proposed text that started the thread:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 1:11:29 PM EST Dave Crocker wrote:
Here is some alternative phrasing:
For DMARC, an Organizational Domain can contain a DMARC record, to
be used as the default DMARC record for subordinate domains that do
not have a DMARC record of their own, and for subordinate domains
that do not exist.
I don't think that is consistent with either RFC 7489 or RFC 9091. I don't
think what is in the current draft is great either. RFC 7489 distinguished
between the definition of organizational domain and how you find the
organizational domain. I think that distinction is useful.
1. Using 7489 or 9091 as fixed, controlling documents is problematic, as
I've noted. So, 'consistency' with them is frankly irrelevant.
2. To the extent that the text I've proposed does not accurately reflect
the semantics of what DMARC needs, please explain what, specifically,
are the issues.
3. The role of the function that uses the PSD and the role of the
function that does a tree walk are identical. Since you apparently feel
otherwise, please explain.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
