On Sat 20/Mar/2021 01:38:40 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
NEW o Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489]. They control all subdomains. These are effectively private domains, but listed in the Public Suffix List. They are treated as Public for DMARC purposes. They require the same protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently unable to benefit from DMARC.Hmm, "Public Suffix List" is in this paragraph. Needs rethinking.
Oops, I missed a couple of those "Public Suffix List" entries. That term was where the conundrum stemmed from, possibly because we're unsure how much we want to bind DMARC to the only PSL implementation we know. That's why we want to avoid that term.
OTOH, the term "Public Suffix Domain" (PSD), seems to be sound. It is often defined as "a domain under which multiple parties that are unaffiliated with the owner of the public suffix domain may register subdomains." We can say that a domain "formally is a PSD" rather than it "is listed in the PSL". The faint semantic difference between the two phrases is the source of the conundrum.
Being a PSD refers to a kind of contract. ICANN mentions the above definition in a Policy Update issue[*], referring it to an expired IETF draft. Should our I-D include such a definition?
Best Ale -- [*] ICANN Policy Update | Volume 15, Issue 5 | Pre-ICANN53, June 2015 https://www.icann.org/resources/newsletter/policy-update-2015-06-16-en _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
