And now following this up as chair: I believe this topic has been discussed at length before and is well settled: the working group's rough consensus on the tree walk is clear. Todd, please close issue 113 as settled, with no document change needed.
Let's please avoid opening tickets on already-settled issues. Barry, DMARC WG chair On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 6:46 AM Douglas Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have opened issue 113 to formally document my strong objections to the > current tree walk: > > Current DMARC policies are configured based on RFC7489 and the PSL, and > evaluators obtain results based on those implementation decisions. Domain > owners may have many reasons to want an alternative to the PSL: (1) The PSL > may contain errors that impact the domain owner's mail flow. (2) The PSL is > implemented in different iterations by different evaluators. (3) The RFC7489 > / PSL algorithm does not allow for partitioned alignment within an > organization. > > Nonetheless, an evaluator has no justification for implementing an algorithm > which produces different results unless the domain owner indicates that he > prefers usage of that different algorithm. This can be accomplished by > tagging his DMARC policies to indicate which of the four possible roles > applies to a particular policy: Org Top, Subdomain, Org Top-and-Bottom > (single label registry), and Org Bottom (bottom layer of a multiple-layer > private registry), and DMARCbis should define those tags The current > upward-walk proposal will cause damage by directing evaluators to apply an > undesired and often incorrect re-interpretation of domain owner intent and > associated alignment boundaries. > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
