In article <CADyWQ+Houc21vE5Hu8nVeEMQw_u0VxD=tavjcqgwk9nobrd...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brotman-rdbd/ > >which defines a mechanism where two domains can state they are related, or >not related via DNS records. >What one wishes to use this information is left to them. > >It would be great to get y'all giving feedback
If it's useful at all, which I don't think it is, it's definitely not useful for PSD since it's intended to describe cross-tree relationships, not the vertical ones that the PSL identifies and that PSD needs. This proposal also invents yet another signature scheme, presumably for the benefit of people who don't think DNSSEC will ever work, which is strange since the lead author works for Comcast who have what is probably the world's biggest set resolvers that validate and use DNSSEC and DANE. R's, John PS: It's not that I think there are no cross-tree relationships to describe, it's that we know from Andrew Sullivan's failed SOPA proposal that doing it one label at a time rather than subtree to subtree isn't viable. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
