[dmarc-ietf] org domain and dns-perimeter draft

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 18 November 2020 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7843A0114 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:55:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9zL3jVz71kPx for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:55:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC6F3A0B45 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:55:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 0AIHwkfS010365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:58:46 -0800
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <9c1dc4dd-48b2-9d2c-4cb4-dac733169a0f@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:55:07 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/JYk0meC4bt-OGv32RbN3ktE432Q>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] org domain and dns-perimeter draft
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:55:51 -0000

Given the renewed discussion about organizational domain and alternative 
boundaries, I'll suggest that this draft from last year might be relevant:

    DNS Perimeter Overlay


> Abstract
>    The Domain Name System (DNS) naming syntax provides no meta-data for
>    indicating administrative transitions through the hierarchy.  For
>    example, it does not distinguish the higher-level portions that
>    operate as public registries, versus those that operate as private
>    organizations.  This specification creates a basic overlay mechanism
>    for defining a logical Perimeter between administrative entities
>    through the naming hierarchy.  The mechanism can then be applied for
>    a variety of independent administrative indications.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking