>>BTW, I see "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=s;aspf=s;fo=1;rua=mailto:[email protected] rvice.gov.uk;ruf=mailto:[email protected]";, but neither .bank nor .insurance.<<
The reason for this is that gov.uk is effectively a second-level domain name and its administrator has a DMARC policy. DMARC at the top-level (e.g., ..BANK, .INSURANCE) doesn't currently exist hence the rationale for the proposed work. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services | .BANK & .INSURANCE -----Original Message----- From: dmarc <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 2:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items On Mon 05/Nov/2018 07:23:08 +0100 Barry Leiba wrote: >> I'd like to recommend that we (DMARC-WG) accept >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kitterman-dmarc-psd-00 >> into our work queue. It aligns with our charter already. > > I've seen three agreements and no objections, so here's an official > call for objections. If there are none by 16 November, we will create > draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-00 as a new working group item. Can we have a brief discussion on what exactly is the purpose of the I-D? At a first glance, it seems an attempt to override the Public Suffix List with a IANA registry. The PSL is based on IANA root zones, taking into account PSO policies. So, we're requiring PSOs to register their email policies at IANA, while their web policies will continue to be "registered" at PSL. Does that sound somewhat curious or is it me? BTW, I see "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=s;aspf=s;fo=1;rua=mailto:[email protected] rvice.gov.uk;ruf=mailto:[email protected]";, but neither .bank nor .insurance. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
