On Wed 10/Jul/2019 22:21:08 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:> There is one week left before WGLC closes, and the below three items > still need resolution. Please speak up! > > -- Seth, as Secretary > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:21 PM Seth Blank <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > As Secretary, there are three items that have not yet reached > consensus that must be resolved during WGLC: > > 1. What further context is needed in the introduction
IMHO, it is clear as is. > 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to > implement are needed Appendix B.1 lacks a criterion to establish enlisting. Couldn't we require an explicit statement about seizing DMARC reports in, say, the delegation report? Alternatively, that policy can be stated in a well-known place under the delegation services URL, so that registrants know what they do. > 3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only NXDOMAINs Yes, it would allow p=reject; sp=none; (np=reject by default). Some nits: (In the intro) controls to mitigate potential privacy considerations associated with this extension Don't mitigate considerations. Mitigate risk, danger, whatever. 2.2. Public Suffix Domain (PSD) That paragraph sounds a bit confused. The concepts of "private" vs. "public" are not clear after having defined branded PSDs. Perhaps it is better to distinguish between single, central admin vs. multi-organization, distributed responsibility. The terms of Expert Review,per [RFC5226] (Appendix B.2) refer to a IANA registry. So, shouldn't the term "IANA" be stated in the title? (And a link to this appendix from the last bullet in Appendix A?) jm2c Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
