On July 24, 2022 9:58:46 AM UTC, 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.
I think you're proposal is somewhat different than the existing shortcuts. The existing items in the note are cases where the tree walk can be skipped entirely. Your suggested addition is about a shortcut within the tree walk algorithm. I think that makes it sufficiently different to merit independent consideration. >In addition, presenting the shortcuts in the middle of the algorithm >specification can alter its meaning. See below. I disagree. They're marked as part of a note, so are not part of the specification. This is a reasonably common thing to do in IETF RFCs. > >> 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. If someone is running a mail server that has a non-trivial load without a local DNS resolver, this will be the least of their problems. Regardless, anyone is free to optimize for their local architecture, if needed. > >> 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. First, if .com had a DMARC record and .com sent mail, it could be both a PSD for lower level domains and it's own organizational domain for itself, so your conclusion is incorrect. We have discussed this multiple times. I think we most recently used .gov.uk as a more realistic example. I think we have been through this more than once and we should not do it again. Second, your "Furthermore..." claim reads to me as because the text says the identifier must be present and authenticated, it will make readers likely to think that the opposite is true. I think you should take a step back and reconsider your suggestion as it doesn't seem at all logical to me. > >I'd specify the algorithm first and discuss shortcuts after. If they are correct, it doesn't matter where the note is and if they are wrong, they should be fixed. I don't think they are wrong and we should move on. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
