On Fri 29/Oct/2021 03:15:10 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On October 29, 2021 12:58:12 AM UTC, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> said:
The key is to get the security and privacy considerations documented so
that ICANN and ccTLD operators are informed and can set their own rules
appropriate. >>
I would be pretty surprised if ICANN had any interest in this other than using
their existing RSTEP process if some TLDs want to publish _dmarc.<tld>.
Yes, and ccTLD operators for whatever processes they use.
Verisign is not new to abusive behavior. About 20 years ago they used to reply
with one of their servers' IP addresses to any query like
www.<unregistered-2LD>.com. ISC came out with the "root-delegation-only" hack
to counter that.
IMHO, we shouldn't throw away the PSL. Most importantly, we should stick to
the concept of Organizational Domain. We can give an abstract definition of
the latter in terms of affiliation of some kind. Then the spec can leave it to
developers to decide how to find it: tree-walk, PSL, dbound or whatever thing
like it will eventually come about, or even a mix of those. That way, code
using the PSL wouldn't be obsoleted. For new code, some configuration stuff to
skip useless queries to _dmarc.com would be useful anyway.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
