On July 28, 2022 9:10:06 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
>On Thu 28/Jul/2022 20:24:35 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> If this process does not determine the Organizational Domain, then
>>> the Organizational Domain is the starting domain.
>>>
>>>
>>> The last paragraph is a puzzle. If a tree walk retrieved a DMARC record,
>>> then there must exist a domain with a record with the fewest number of
>>> labels. It is not needed any more. Let's replace it with:
>>>
>>>
>>> For Tree Walks that retrieved no DMARC record, the Organizational Domain
>>> is
>>> undefined. No alignment can be established in such cases.
>>>
>> No. That's incorrect. We have discussed this exact point multiple times in
>> the last several weeks. I conclude that I'm incapable of communicating this
>> adequately and will leave it to someone else.
>
>
>Yes, I remember the discussions, and some example cases where it happened.
>Yet, reading again step 3:
>
> 3. Otherwise select the record for the domain with the fewest number
> of labels. This is the Organizational Domain and the selection
> process is complete.
>
>How can it possibly happen, in real or imaginary cases, that the org domain is
>not selected after this step?
>
>The examples were something like psd.example.com, whose record with psd=y was
>discarded on step 2. If example.com and com have no records, the record for
>the domain with the fewest number of labels is still psd.example.com, so the
>process concludes by step 3.
>
>I don't recall other examples, except the invalid ones, like .com, which I
>imagined before getting that having retrieved a DMARC record was a requirement
>for the input tree walk.
Okay. I see what you are saying and I think it's correct, but I think it's
still a good idea to keep it there to cover anything we didn't think of. I
could live with removing it if that's the group's preference.
This was more clearly needed before "other than the one for the domain where
the tree walk started" was added in -11. I think that addressed the specific
use case I had in mind.
My apologies for letting my personal frustrations over the pace of the work
spill over on you. Thank you for taking another shot at it.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
