On Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:41:34 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Tue 16/Apr/2024 23:17:44 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > DMARCbis currently describes the value of 'n' for the 'psd' tag in a
> > policy
> >
> > record as follows:
> > The DMARC policy record is published for a PSD, but it is not the
> > Organizational Domain for itself and its subdomain. There is no need
> > to put
> > psd=n in a DMARC record, except in the very unusual case of a parent
> > PSD
> > publishing a DMARC record without the requisite psd=y tag.
> >
> > I don't think this is entirely accurate, especially the second sentence
> > ("no need ... except in the very unusual case"), and here's why. Either
> > that, or the description of the Tree Walk needs to be changed.
>
> The correct text would be something like so:
>
> The DMARC policy record is published for a domain which is the
> Organizational Domain for itself and its subdomains (up to one which
> in turn publishes a psd= tag with value not u.) There is no need to
> put "psd=n" in a DMARC record, except in the very unusual case of a
> parent PSD publishing a DMARC record without the requisite psd=y tag.
> (A parent PSD not publishing any DMARC record is fine.)
>
> Note that intermediate records are discarded.
I think something like this is fine.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
