I don't understand your point here, Doug. It seems more likely that a subdomain of a subdomain should be following the latter subdomain's policy by default, rather than the higher-level domain's. That is, for a.b.c.d, "a" would be more likely to expect to follow "b" than "c". Which means that the tree walk will give the desired result when the PSL would generally not have done so.
Are you disagreeing with that, as it seems? Or am I misunderstanding you? Barry On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:56 PM Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I seem to have missed this redesign. I thought the plan had always been to > take the top-most policy not flagged as PSD=Y. Taking the first policy > found is less work, but it turns subdomain policies into organizational > domain policies. I expect that to be an unwanted surprise to many domain > owners, since the subdomain policies will typically lack an sp clause. > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 7:46 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: >> >> I don't find this to be a surprise. >> >> I believe we discussed this specific type of case early in the tree walk >> discussion. An early proposal was to walk up the tree to find the PSD and >> then reverse back down the tree to find the org domain (PSD +1). This >> approach would have provided an identical result to the PSL design for this >> case, but we concluded the added complexity and potential other issues made >> it not the best approach. >> >> Up to now, I don't think anyone has suggested that DMARCbis needs to produce >> 100% identical results with RFC 7489. We know it won't, but the differences >> are at the margins and we assessed that they're okay. >> >> Scott K >> >> >> On February 24, 2023 12:36:03 AM UTC, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> >> wrote: >> >The issue here, Tim, is that the current way of checking the PSL would send >> >you to the DMARC record for cuny.edu and p=none, while using the new tree >> >walk would send you to the DMARC record for bmcc.cuny.edu and p=quarantine. >> > >> >In this case, it’s showing that the tree walk is the better mechanism, >> >because it’s pretty clear that it matches the publisher’s intent. But >> >Elizabeth is pointing out that it DOES change the result, which means that >> >the result depends upon which version of the DMARC spec the receiving >> >domain is using. >> > >> >Barry >> > >> >On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 3:51 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Elizabeth, >> >> >> >> (speaking as a DNS person). I think this is "OK" - at my last job we set >> >> up DMARC records which stricter in certain subdomains than >> >> the parent domain. (Now I need to go find the machine where I left my code >> >> which did all this validation). >> >> >> >> >> >> (As a DNS person I want to find the folks who put in the TXT record for _ >> >> dmarc.cuny.edu and ask them to quote their string. But that's >> >> my OCD). >> >> >> >> tim >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:30 PM Elizabeth Zwicky <zwicky= >> >> 40otoh....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> I haven’t done extensive research but here is a live example where >> >>> treewalk will cause a result change. >> >>> >> >>> From: is in the domain Ret.bmcc.cuny.edu which has no DMARC record. >> >>> >> >>> _dmarc.bmcc.cuny.edu. 300 IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; >> >>> fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_...@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto: >> >>> dmarc_...@emaildefense.proofpoint.com" >> >>> >> >>> _dmarc.cuny.edu. 3325 IN TXT "v=DMARC1;" "p=none;" >> >>> "rua=mailto:dmarc_...@emaildefense.proofpoint.com,mailto: >> >>> post.mas...@cuny.edu;" "ruf=mailto:dmarc_...@emaildefense.proofpoint.com >> >>> ,mailto:post.mas...@cuny.edu;"; "fo=1" >> >>> >> >>> Elizabeth Zwicky >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
