On April 15, 2024 4:34:40 PM UTC, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
>It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said:
>>8 is not needed and not justified. A mail site using 8 labels would have
>>troubles with the RFC 7489 version, which uses the PSL. They'd have to ask
>>for
>>PSL upgrades, right?
>
>No, they would not. They might ask to have their pseudo-TLDs added to
>the PSL but there's a process for that and it is definitely not our
>problem.
>
>>Now, we can relax our ambition to be PSL-free and state N=max number of
>>labels
>>of public suffixes used by mail. Or we could put N in an IANA registry that
>>can be updated by expert review. Such methods allow to have N low enough,
>>yet
>>upgradable and equal for all (compliant) implementations.
>
>That is a great deal of complication for no benefit whatever.
>
>I'm with Scott, pick a number, 5, 8, whatever, and be done with it.
>
Modulo we do need to explain why 8. Related, I think we also need to explain
why the reporting address thing is important for DMARCbis since having an
intermediate level record isn't currently supported by DMARC.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
