On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:02 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr= [email protected]> wrote:
> > I would propose the following first draft of expository text regarding > setting N at 8: > > The point of the Tree Walk is to allow for the publishing and discovery of > DMARC policy records at any level in the DNS hierarchy that strikes a > balance between what the domain registrant deems reasonable and what > operational needs deem reasonable. The setting of N is done with an eye to > putting a thumb on the scale on the side of operational needs, to guard > against the truly silly or abusive cases with domain names with label > counts in the dozens or even triple digits. Based on an observation at the > time of publishing that RFC5322.From domains with seven labels were in > active but uncommon use, eight was chosen as the value of N in order to not > only accommodate for current usage but also to allow for a bit of future > expansion of the depth of the name space used for RFC5322.From domains. > > If it's not already there someplace, maybe a sentence or two about the impact of higher and lower values would be helpful (e.g., lower cost/better speed vs. accuracy). -MSK, p11g
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
