> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 2:27 PM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dmarc-ietf] Mention ICANN/operational limitations
> was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
>
> On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:59
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 1:27 PM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dmarc-ietf] Introduction context was: Re: Working
> Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
>
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Bl
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 12:08 AM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-
> dmarc-psd
>
> I don't plan any changes except for those in response to last call comme
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 6:52 AM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Cc: superu...@gmail.com
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs in draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
>
> >I concur. Does anyone know of such a policy statement from ICANN? I
, June 7, 2019 7:02:59 AM EDT Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> It would be helpful to the reader if the draft were either clear about
> potential limitations to deployment or more descriptive about the domains
> for which the approach can work. Right now, PSD DMARC
From: dmarc On Behalf Of Craig Schwartz
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSDs in draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
>On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:12 PM EDT Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>I recently had a chance to read t
I recently had a chance to read through draft-ietf-dmarc-psd. If I understand
it correctly (and I'm not sure that I do), the document suggests that it's
possible for a TLD like ".com" to be a PSD and a TXT record like "_dmarc.com"
can be published in the com zone. I found this part of the draft
