If we're going to refight the DBOUND battle, here's another entry, which even has running code. I see no reason to think that we are any more likely to endorse one of these now than we were a few years ago so I encourage the group to limit the debate to the existing Org/PSL kludge and a tree walk.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dbound-dns/ Code: https://github.com/jrlevine/bound Abstract The organization that manages a subtree in the DNS is often different from the one that manages the tree above it. We describe an architecture to publish in the DNS the boundaries between organizations that can be adapted to various policy models and can be queried with a small number of DNS lookups. R's, John In article <[email protected]> you write: >Given the renewed discussion about organizational domain and alternative >boundaries, I'll suggest that this draft from last year might be relevant: > > > DNS Perimeter Overlay > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-01> > > >> Abstract >> >> The Domain Name System (DNS) naming syntax provides no meta-data for >> indicating administrative transitions through the hierarchy. For >> example, it does not distinguish the higher-level portions that >> operate as public registries, versus those that operate as private >> organizations. This specification creates a basic overlay mechanism >> for defining a logical Perimeter between administrative entities >> through the naming hierarchy. The mechanism can then be applied for >> a variety of independent administrative indications. > > >d/ >-- >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg InternetWorking >bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
