On October 17, 2023 5:56:47 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
>On Tue 17/Oct/2023 14:03:40 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On October 17, 2023 7:32:22 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
>>> On Mon 16/Oct/2023 20:00:00 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> On October 16, 2023 5:53:13 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri 13/Oct/2023 16:35:43 +0200 Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you, sir. That’s part of the reason to cautiously transition away
>>>>>> from the PSL. It has the feel of a throwback to a time when people
>>>>>> thought the number of total users would be in the hundreds or thousands.
>>>>>> Wouldn’t a cautious transition alleviate your concerns? Not everyone,
>>>>>> everywhere will pull the switch at midnight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we engage ICANN for sending a kind request to upgrade their DMARC
>>>>> records to all PSDs? Or can we do it on their behalf? Or on IETF
>>>>> behalf? Or?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that a subject for 118?
>>>>
>>>> Which ICANN managed TLDs have DMARC records (PSDs which are either not
>>>> TLDs or not ICANN managed TLDs are not anything ICANN has anything to say
>>>> about)?
>>>
>>> According to Doug's file:
>>>
>>> ale@pcale:~/tmp/zdkimfilter/regdom$ for d in $(grep -v '^[/* ]'
>>> icann_public_suffix_list.dat); do l=$(grep "^$d,"
>>> PSL_entries_with_DMARC_policies.csv); if [ -n "$l" ]; then echo "$d -> $l";
>>> fi done
>>> ...
>>> [list elided]
>>> ...
>>
>> Unless I missed one, none of those are TLDs except gov and mil and all of
>> the rest are under CC TLDs, so doubly nothing to do with ICANN. ICANN
>> doesn't manage gov and mil, but they both have psd=y in their records
>> already, so I'm not sure why they are even on the list.
>
>
>Ok, those are PSDs, not TLDs. They are in the ICANN part of the PSL. Does
>that imply they have nothing to do with ICANN?!?
>
>If ICANN cannot help, we can as well consider the so-called private domains of
>the PSL.
>
>DMARCbis assumes that PSOs include this tag with a value of 'y' to indicate
>that the domain is a PSD. Indeed, Section 5.6 specifies:
>
> In addition to the DMARC Domain Owner actions, if a PSO publishes a DMARC
> record it MUST include the psd tag (see Section 5.3) with a value of 'y'
> ("psd=y").
>
>Non-compliance in this case affects all independent subdomains of those PSL
>domains. Admittedly, they are not so frequently met. However, before
>switching from PSL to Tree Walk, operators would probably want to see at least
>a (significant) part of those set their tags, no?
>
Nothing in the PSL has anything to do with ICANN.
Most of those don't have independent sub-domains, so no, most is not relevant.
If I were updating an implementation to support DMARCbis, I might want to
consider that, but it has nothing to do with actually developing the updated
standard, which is what I thought we were trying to do.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
