I’m saying, as an individual, that there was a thread where we discussed a new N for the tree walk. There was appetite, but no new N was settled on.
Given that prior appetite but no conclusion, I believe as part of WGLC we should choose that N. I proposed what I think would work. John Levine chimed in that he thought that was reasonable. Do you have operational experience as a report consumer that this would be a mistake and more complicated organizations should not be able to receive reports? Seth Blank | Chief Technology Officer Email: s...@valimail.com This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 16:19 Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
