On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:50 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon 11/Nov/2019 16:46:17 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > > > I don't think that it is fair to say that anyone who refers to the org > domain > > concept as cited in the DMARC spec is necessarily invoking the PSL. > > Agreed. The PSL just happens to be the only valid tool to do that. > Which was not what I thought Tim W was talking about... > For various reasons, large organizations administer many apparently > unrelated > domains. For example, _dmarc.youtube.com has a rua mailto ending in > @google.com. We cannot infer an OD from that, but I think the concept is > clear. > I don't think this has anything to do with the PSD proposal either. Why do you bring it up? > > As to the proposed "let's run this as an experiment pending DMARCbis", I > don't > > see how that satisfies Dave's concern about creating new work for > receivers in > > order to help a small set of domain (realm) owners. I'm not opposed to > it, but > > I just don't see how this solves the issue. > > Isn't that an ICANN problem? For the time being, dig _dmarc.bank txt > returns > an empty NOERROR response, while _dmarc.gov.uk returns a valid record. > The > latter is a Nominet, already solved problem, AFAICS. > If it was a solved problem, then we would not need a PSD (or realm) I-D and this whole discussion would be moot. What ICANN does and does not allow is out of scope for the IETF/protocol work (though I do acknowledge that ICANN may consider protocol factors when making decisions - or I would hope that they would). --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
