On Sun 26/Feb/2023 07:13:04 +0100 Barry Leiba wrote:
What does the proposal add that's useful? The current situation appears to be what we'd want: with the tree walk, ret.bmcc inherits the p=quarantine from bmcc. If it wants otherwise, it can specify it explicitly. Saying it wants to inherit from cuny.edu but wants to use bmcc's p= policy... is odd. Where's the benefit?
AIUI, Alex proposal is meant to soften the result change caused by the tree walk. Currently, subdomains inherit from the org domain. With tree walk, they inherit from the nearest ancestor. Why? As Alex pointed out, we didn't give it a ton of thought.
Just note that it is not for saving lookups, since alignment evaluation requires to navigate to the org domain anyway.
For me, the bottom line is that either you inherit from your parent... or you don't want to and you specify that with an explicit record. What, beyond that, is useful?
Allow an intermediate subdomain to publish its own record without interfering with all the policies of the tree downwards. The complexity of the tree walk is not overturned by providing for inheritance. It would allow, for example, to add a rua= address without interfering with policy changes. A minimal change to ease a task, DNS maintenance, which we know to be hardly reachable by email staff.
Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
