On March 31, 2024 7:49:08 PM UTC, Seth Blank <seth=40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 1:40 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> >> >> On March 31, 2024 5:32:13 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: >> >>>> I’m probably being pedantic here: is “gov” a domain? >> >>> Yup, it's a domain. >> >> I stand corrected on that. >> > >> >Anything that meets the DNS spec is a domain namen, e.g., >> argle.bargle.parp is a domain name. If and how particular names might be >> resolved is a topic to which the IETF and ICANN have given a certain amount >> of attention. >> > >> >> Might be worth bumping up. Examples: >> >> >> >> execute-api.cn-north-1.amazonaws.com.cn >> >> cn-northwest-1.eb.amazonaws.com.cn >> >> >> >> (Amazon seems to have most of the really long ones) >> > >> >None of those Amazon ones are used for mail so they're irrelevant to >> DMARC, but see Seth's recent message. He says he's seen mail domains 8 >> deep. >> >> I need to write a response to that, but he's made the claim before and >> they are from deep within a PSD. The idea that we need to change the >> number as a result got no traction. >> > >That's not true. There was not consensus on a new N, but there was also not >resistance to increasing it. Multiple operators have confidential examples, >and I also have some. > >Remember, the issue is with *reporting* discovery and not org domain >lookup. Those that collect reports see the issue, but cannot break client >confidentiality to share the examples. > That's not my recollection.
Are you saying as co-chair that any issue for which there was not a formal consensus call is still open for discussion? Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
