Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

>
> If it were possible to infer OD from some kind of DNS record (or from RDAP
> responses, for another way) then we'd have a tool alternative to the PSL.
> That
> proves that the concept of OD is independent of the PSL, doesn'it?
>

Over in DNSOP we're been working with the authors on this Related Domains
draft

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brotman-rdbd/

which defines a mechanism where two domains can state they are related, or
not related via DNS records.
What one wishes to use this information is left to them.

It would be great to get y'all giving feedback

Tim

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 3:43 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Mon 11/Nov/2019 19:31:52 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:50 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
> wrote:
> >
> >> For various reasons, large organizations administer many apparently
> >> unrelated domains.  For example, _dmarc.youtube.com has a rua mailto
> >> ending in @google.com.  We cannot infer an OD from that, but I think
> the
> >> concept is clear.>>
> >
> > I don't think this has anything to do with the PSD proposal either. Why
> do
> > you bring it up?
>
>
> If it were possible to infer OD from some kind of DNS record (or from RDAP
> responses, for another way) then we'd have a tool alternative to the PSL.
> That
> proves that the concept of OD is independent of the PSL, doesn'it?
>
>
> >>> As to the proposed "let's run this as an experiment pending DMARCbis",
> >>> I don't see how that satisfies Dave's concern about creating new work
> >>> for receivers in order to help a small set of domain (realm) owners.
> I'm
> >>> not opposed to it, but I just don't see how this solves the issue.>>
> >> Isn't that an ICANN problem?  For the time being, dig _dmarc.bank txt
> >> returns an empty NOERROR response, while _dmarc.gov.uk returns a valid
> >> record. The latter is a Nominet, already solved problem, AFAICS.>>
> >
> > If it was a solved problem, then we would not need a PSD (or realm) I-D
> and
> > this whole discussion would be moot. What ICANN does and does not allow
> is
> > out of scope for the IETF/protocol work (though I do acknowledge that
> ICANN
> > may consider protocol factors when making decisions - or I would hope
> that
> > they would).
>
>
> Oh, you meant the receivers burden of an extra lookup?  Sorry, I though it
> was
> about the need for each OD to opt out by defining its own DMARC record,
> lest
> have reports delivered to the realm.  In the latter sense, Nominet solved
> the
> problem of what rights has gov.uk on domains below it.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>