Ale's point is part of a larger inefficiency. As information is gathered, the candidate names can be reviewed for a match. If a match is obtained, the result is PASS and the algorithm exits. If not, then candidate names which can be ruled out are discarded. If this makes the candidate list empty, then the result is FAIL and the algorithm exits. Otherwise, the process proceeds to the next information gathering step, where the logic is repeated. By the time we reach the relaxed alignment test, we should have discarded any candidate domains that are not equal to or children of the From Address organization. So all that remains is to do the walk to verify that no PSD flags are found before the From address organization is reached.
DF On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 5:59 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > John, > > On Sat 23/Jul/2022 19:52:33 +0200 John Levine wrote: > > As I would hope everyone in this discussion would be aware, the "as if" > > rule applies to all IETF standards. You can do whatever you want so long > > as the result is the same as if you had done what the spec says. > > > The "as if" rule also holds for the case that all domains are equal, > the case that no policy record is found, and the case that all > alignments are strict. Shortcuts have been part of the draft at least > since April, and their presence seems to be accepted by the WG. > > I don't understand why those shortcuts deserve being mentioned while > the parent-child does not. > > In addition, presenting the shortcuts in the middle of the algorithm > specification can alter its meaning. See below. > > > > In this case, the speedup from your change is unlikely to make any > > speed difference since the repeated queries will use cached results, > > the extra complication is confusing, and the extra utility is zero. > > > Several mail servers don't have a dedicated DNS server, that means > that each query has a measurable cost. > > > > As I have repeatedly asked, if you think there are places where the > > tree walk results are wrong, show us some examples. Otherwise, please > > stop. > > > Here you are: > > I hope you agree that .com is a domain. The spec says that in order > to discover the Organizational Domain for a domain, I can perform the > DNS Tree Walk as needed for any of the domains in question. That way, > the domain in question, .com, is the Organizational Domain of itself. > That is wrong because .com is a PSD. > > Oh, perhaps "in question" refers to the three cases mentioned in the > Section's intro? It doesn't say so, it says a tree walk "might start" > there, without excluding other possibilities. "In question" can > legitimately be understood to refer to any domain at hand. > > Furthermore, the parenthesized reinforcement "if present and > authenticated" in a domain in the first shortcut casts a shadow on the > requirement that all identifiers except From: must be authenticated > —if that requirement were clear, there'd be no need to reinforce it. > This corroborates the wrong interpretation. > > I'd specify the algorithm first and discuss shortcuts after. > > > > It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said: > >> [...] > >> I'd propose to collect this and the three shortcuts of Section 4.8 (no > >> need to perform Tree Walk searches for Organizational Domains) and > >> move them to an appendix. > >> > >> To better clean up that section, I'd also remove the paragraph: > >> > >> To discover the Organizational Domain for a domain, perform the DNS > >> Tree Walk described in Section 4.6 as needed for any of the domains > >> in question. > >> > >> It can be understood as stating that the algorithm which follows > >> allows to determine the org domain for any domain at hand. Indeed, it > >> does not say that the algorithm is valid for the needed domains only. > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
