On June 18, 2022 3:09:19 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 7:49 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Given that the mechanism we've defined uses DMARC records to make the
>> determination, I don't think it would be useful to separate it into a
>> different document. If we ever get an approach that's not DMARC specific,
>> then I think it would make sense to document it independently.
>>
>
>The tree walk might be the DBOUND solution, for all we know. Having it in
>a separate, generic-as-possible, document might make the technique usable
>by other applications as well.
>
>I rather liked the idea of DMARCbis saying "You need some way to determine
>the Organizational Domain. One way is with the PSL as described in X, or
>you could do a tree walk as described in Y." It also means if we ever want
>to introduce some third mechanism, we don't need to do a DMARCbisbis (which
>I think is DMARCter).
I did too, but I think what we have now is too DMARC specific to potentially be
a DBOUND solution.
If something else does appear that turns out to be suitable for DMARC, I don't
think we will need to re-roll the whole document. It would be simple enough to
have a short draft that updates DMARCbis which days that in addition to what's
in DMARCbis, the organizational domain discovery mechanism identified in X can
also be used.
That's part of why I think we needn't worry about it now.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
