>> > I'm at a loss to understand what's confusing. I'm not convinced that
>> > "registrations" in the
>> > context of domain names is unclear to a reader familiar with this space.
>>
>> I am absolutely convinced that it is. Think of people in M3AAWG, for
>> whom this is very relevant. Many of
I would go even further and not even talk about the trees and nodes. Also,
echoing elsewhere in this thread, making it really clear that this is not a
case of DMARC is coming for your TLD. So, I’d propose something super basic
like this for the second paragraph:
Domain name suffixes (for
Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all those
terms mean and
how they are all related.
yes. But it's worse than that. The current language is not
automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS
administration.
As is being noted, I too
So what is the best nomenclature for referring to the "ICANN-authorized
registries"? Dave's phrase or something else?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:26 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> >>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what
> all those terms mean and
> >>> how they are
That does not answer the question. We can only clarify the registration
question by clarifying what entity's registration mechanism is in scope.
Do we simply say that this document applies to registrations occurring
immediately below an entry on the PSL?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 11:14 AM Dave
On 27 October 2020, in post
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qtCDyGbeDHz96G8FaCxJvhJKrvo/
the chairs announced a split of RFC7489 into three documents, to be scoped
as follows:
- The DMARC Base Spec (editors - Emil Gustafsson, Todd Herr, and John
Levine)
- Aggregate Reporting
Thanks for sending this out Seth. folks are free to contact the chairs
and our AD if they have questions, concerns.
tim
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Seth Blank wrote:
> On 27 October 2020, in post
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qtCDyGbeDHz96G8FaCxJvhJKrvo/
> the chairs
On 2/22/2021 7:49 AM, Douglas Foster wrote:
So what is the best nomenclature for referring to the
"ICANN-authorized registries"? Dave's phrase or something else?
Strictly speaking co.uk is not ICAN-authorized. It's authorized by
mechanisms internal to the UK.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
On Monday 22 February 2021 16:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Strictly speaking co.uk is not ICAN-authorized. It's authorized by
> mechanisms internal to the UK.
>
None of the ccTLDs registry operators would call or consider themselves
"ICANN-authorized". The original authorisation to use the
>>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all
those terms mean and
>>> how they are all related.
yes. But it's worse than that. The current language is not
automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS
administration.
As is being noted, I
So I'm assuming there won't be anything to talk about at the next IETF
meeting.
Michael Hammer
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Seth Blank wrote:
> On 27 October 2020, in post
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qtCDyGbeDHz96G8FaCxJvhJKrvo/
> the chairs announced a split of RFC7489
We’re working on canceling the meeting.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 16:59, Dotzero wrote:
>
>
> So I'm assuming there won't be anything to talk about at the next IETF
> meeting.
>
> Michael Hammer
>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Seth Blank
>> wrote:
>> On 27
12 matches
Mail list logo
