Re: [dmarc-ietf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 9:38:40 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:09 PM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > In article <CABuGu1rekWo3mRkK_OpRksYNrSmPaFHD6k1_K=
> > 
> > [e-mail]> you write:
> > >   1. ".co.uk" is not a TLD. TLDs are single label domains - there are
> > >   ccTLDs and gTLDs.
> > 
> > Right.
> 
> I don't disagree, but what I was going for here was some level of
> consistency with section 3.2 of RFC 7489, which reads in part:
> 
>    1.  Acquire a "public suffix" list, i.e., a list of DNS domain names
>        reserved for registrations.  Some country Top-Level Domains
>        (TLDs) make specific registration requirements, e.g., the United
>        Kingdom places company registrations under ".co.uk"; other TLDs
>        such as ".com" appear in the IANA registry of top-level DNS
>        domains.  A public suffix list is the union of all of these.
>        Appendix A.6.1
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#appendix-A.6.1> contains some
> discussion about obtaining a public
>        suffix list.
> 
> 
> The point of the paragraph in question wasn't to define TLDs (or PSDs) but
> rather to better define "domain names reserved for registration".
> 
> > >   2. The invocation of the PSL compounds the issue that was raised by
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > >   Crocker. How DMARC (RFC 7489) determines the organizational domain is
> > >   orthogonal to this proposal which simply calls for a conditional
> > 
> > additional
> > 
> > >   check at the "org - 1" level. I recommend striking the penultimate
> > >   paragraph in the proposal.
> > 
> > I'd suggest weasel wording it to say that the domain above an org
> > domain is often known as a public suffix domain, which typically
> > delegates the org domains below it to a unrelated parties.  This spec
> > allows public suffix domains to publish policies to supplant those of
> > their child org domains ...
> > 
> > I agree we should stay as far from mentioning the PSL and its specific
> > implementation as possible.  Who knows, someday people might get
> > around to trying my dbound in DNS implementation instead.
> 
> Dale twice in his comments expresses doubt that it's possible for anyone to
> know all PSDs; the mention of a specific PSL in the abstract was an attempt
> to answer those doubts.
> 
> The second paragraph could be rewritten as
> 
> *The original design of DMARC applies only to domains that are registered
> with a domain name registrar (called “Organizational Domains” in RFC 7489)
> and nodes in the tree below Organizational Domains. Organizational Domains
> are themselves nodes in the tree below domain names reserved for
> registration, the latter of which will be referred to as Public Suffix
> Domains (PSDs) in this document.*
> 
> But how to address Dale's concerns about how one knows all PSDs?

To the extent this is a problem, it's RFC 7489's problem.  This document 
leverages it's existing definitions.  That's intentional.  While the current 
RFC 7489 definitions aren't ideal, as an extension to that work, I don't think 
it make sense to try and fix it here.  That's work for 7489bis.

Scott K