On Friday, April 10, 2020 9:38:40 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:09 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > In article <CABuGu1rekWo3mRkK_OpRksYNrSmPaFHD6k1_K= > > > > [email protected]> you write: > > > 1. ".co.uk" is not a TLD. TLDs are single label domains - there are > > > ccTLDs and gTLDs. > > > > Right. > > I don't disagree, but what I was going for here was some level of > consistency with section 3.2 of RFC 7489, which reads in part: > > 1. Acquire a "public suffix" list, i.e., a list of DNS domain names > reserved for registrations. Some country Top-Level Domains > (TLDs) make specific registration requirements, e.g., the United > Kingdom places company registrations under ".co.uk"; other TLDs > such as ".com" appear in the IANA registry of top-level DNS > domains. A public suffix list is the union of all of these. > Appendix A.6.1 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#appendix-A.6.1> contains some > discussion about obtaining a public > suffix list. > > > The point of the paragraph in question wasn't to define TLDs (or PSDs) but > rather to better define "domain names reserved for registration". > > > > 2. The invocation of the PSL compounds the issue that was raised by > > > > Dave > > > > > Crocker. How DMARC (RFC 7489) determines the organizational domain is > > > orthogonal to this proposal which simply calls for a conditional > > > > additional > > > > > check at the "org - 1" level. I recommend striking the penultimate > > > paragraph in the proposal. > > > > I'd suggest weasel wording it to say that the domain above an org > > domain is often known as a public suffix domain, which typically > > delegates the org domains below it to a unrelated parties. This spec > > allows public suffix domains to publish policies to supplant those of > > their child org domains ... > > > > I agree we should stay as far from mentioning the PSL and its specific > > implementation as possible. Who knows, someday people might get > > around to trying my dbound in DNS implementation instead. > > Dale twice in his comments expresses doubt that it's possible for anyone to > know all PSDs; the mention of a specific PSL in the abstract was an attempt > to answer those doubts. > > The second paragraph could be rewritten as > > *The original design of DMARC applies only to domains that are registered > with a domain name registrar (called “Organizational Domains” in RFC 7489) > and nodes in the tree below Organizational Domains. Organizational Domains > are themselves nodes in the tree below domain names reserved for > registration, the latter of which will be referred to as Public Suffix > Domains (PSDs) in this document.* > > But how to address Dale's concerns about how one knows all PSDs?
To the extent this is a problem, it's RFC 7489's problem. This document leverages it's existing definitions. That's intentional. While the current RFC 7489 definitions aren't ideal, as an extension to that work, I don't think it make sense to try and fix it here. That's work for 7489bis. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
