On Wed 26/Jan/2022 20:01:24 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 1/26/2022 10:54 AM, John R Levine wrote:
Ahh, You are claiming I said something about a 'general method'.
I didn't.
Since you think otherwise, could you explain in simple language
that even I could understand how you reached that interpretation of
my note?
Now we're both confused. When you said "The method of finding the
organizational domain should be specified outside of the base DMARC
specification" did that mean it's still unique to DMARC, but we put
it in a different document?
1. I said it should be specified outside of the base DMARC document.
That's different from saying what the internals of the separate
document should contain. I didn't comment on that.
I think I see where John's confusion is coming from. After DBOUND
experience, it was obvious to him that a tree walk cannot determine
where the zone cut lies. Hence replacing the PSL with a tree walk
obviously implied to him to abandon the concept of organizational domain.
In that case, we wouldn't need to define any concept. We pick up an
algorithm and take its outcome, whatever it is.
2. But since you are asking, I think it is pretty easy to specify the
details of the mechanism in a way that does not require DMARC specific
text. Not because it is will or might have more general use -- that
that's often a collateral benefit -- but because specs should not
overspecify detail they don't need to.
The DMARC-specific detail is the use of role= or psd=/org= tags in
DMARC records. These tags can aid tree walking and determination of
the organizational domain.
Still, since we are writing three documents, adding a forth one to
specify the mechanism may make sense, especially if it's going to be
experimental.
If so, what's the point of making it separate? If not, what am I
missing?
It removes fate-sharing of the core mechanism from the messier
component mechanism that will have (at least) two very different
operational designs with the new one being... new and lacking solid
field experience that gives assurance for uptake. (Thought I said all
that in the original note. Should I have used caps?)
It's loud and clear, to me at least. In particular, considerations
about the uptake of the new mechanism need to take into account both
the receiver's software implementations and the publishing of walking
aid tags. Perhaps there will be hybrid methods for a while.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
