The wording surrounding the tree walk procedure is superficially inconsistent. But actually not.
DMARC Policy Discovery has a bullet: * If the Author Domain has eight or fewer labels, the starting point will be the immediate parent domain of the Author Domain. ** eight or fewer ** But the generic Tree Walk procedure has this: 3. Break the subject DNS domain name into a set of ordered labels. Assign the count of labels to "x", and number the labels from right to left; e.g., for "a.mail.example.com", "x" would be assigned the value 4, "com" would be label 1, "example" would be label 2, "mail" would be label 3, and so forth. 4. If x < 8, remove the left-most (highest-numbered) label from the subject domain. If x >= 8, remove the left-most (highest-numbered) labels from the subject domain until 7 labels remain. The resulting DNS domain name is the new target for the next lookup. ** x >= 8 --> eight or more ** It puzzled me until I thought it through thoroughly. Maybe reword to avoid making other unsuspecting readers puzzled by the superficial inconsistency? 3. Break the subject DNS domain name into a set of ordered labels. Number the labels from right to left; e.g., for "a.mail.example.com", "com" would be label 1, "example" would be label 2, "mail" would be label 3, and so forth. 4. Remove one or more of the left-most (highest-numbered) labels from the subject domain until a maximum of 7 labels remain. The resulting DNS domain name is the new target for the next lookup. Is this better or worse, or am I just mathematically or logically challenged, and too slow in reading the text and figuring out there is actually no inconsistency? Btw, I just sent a PR for a few wording changes, please pull it. https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/pull/163 Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
