On Sunday, March 20, 2022 6:47:07 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: > > No, that is completely wrong. Please review the previous thousand > > messages about why we are switching to a tree walk. > > Rather than being snarky about reviewing the previous thousand > messages, perhaps you could write up a one-paragraph summary of the > result? Hhere's why: If it took us a thousand messages, literally or > metaphorically, and if some are still showing a lack of clarity about > why we got here, then (1) a brief reminder posted here wouldn't hurt > and (2) readers in the future are going to want to know as well, and > having something we can put in the document to explain it will be > really useful. > > Then the text we settle on can go into the draft and it will be > clearly documented so that others -- future implementors, the IESG > during the approval process, whoever -- will know the story and will > have fewer questions.
Generically, I think that's quite reasonable and I'll give it a shot. Specifically, I am also feeling some frustration about this. My impression is that whenever this topic gets mentioned, there are certain participants attempting to rehash the argument over again and unwilling or unable to accept the arguments that have been made. I didn't look back and see who wrote this or who it was written to, so I have no idea about the conversation previous to this on the thread. Working from memory (so chime in if I miss something): The PSL was created to deal with the lack of a clear way to distinguish DNS boundaries related to web technologies. It's purpose is unrelated to email. While it served reasonably well for the initial DMARC deployment, it has a number of limitations that lead it to not being an optimal choice for determining DMARC Organizational Domains: 1. It is by design, incomplete. Due to lack of resources, the PSL maintainers have stated that not all domains can be included. 2. Due to the differing purpose of the PSL, there are cases where the correct data for the PSL is not the correct data for DMARC (see the recent message from John Levine with examples). 3. PSL is maintained by a single private organization with limited external oversight and no documented configuration management process. It could disappear tomorrow or be completely changed if the people running it decided to do so. A protocol based on an unstable reference such as this is not suitable for standardization by the IETF. The alternative Tree Walk mechanism that the working group is currently finishing work on has none of these disadvantages. We believe it will produce more correct results and be more maintainable than continued used of the PSL. We also believe that, in practice, it is backward compatible with existing usage. To the extent we have found differences between the results with PSL versus Tree Walk, the Tree Walk results have all been more correct. My predication is we will now get to redo the argument about this, just like we do every time it comes up. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
