On June 30, 2022 7:12:42 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed 29/Jun/2022 19:17:05 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the example is contrived, but since there are no rules limiting
>>> delegation to third parties, we cannot be sure how subdomains are going to
>>> evolve.
>>
>> My view is that we are in a case that is sufficiently obscure that the
>> answer to complaints should be "then don't do that". We should move on to
>> other critical topics like what to call the tag.
>
>
>It is difficult to find the right names for the tags when we look at them and
>still don't know whether we see rabbits or ducks.
>
>Perhaps there should be an appendix making examples of how to structure
>cascades of private PSDs, also showing how the algorithm behaves in such
>corner cases?
I don't think it merits such a treatment. 99.9 (plus some number of additional
nines) percent of domains, no one will even need to think about the psd= tag.
For the likely no more than dozens of domains that really need psd=y it is
relatively straightforward and I think we provide sufficient guidance already.
It's possible that the multiple layer monstrosity we're discussing here exists,
but I think it is unlikely.
Adding a lot of text to explain this small a corner case at best slows down the
working group and at worst creates an attractive nuisance that causes someone
to overthink their situation and make a deployment error.
Let's move on.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
