As Chair, can this thread be brought to a close? It does not seem
productive as Scott has repeatably observed.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:41 Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
