Re: [dmarc-ietf] the long march, WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

["John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As a side effect of the switch to the tree walk approach in DMARCbis, this is
> no longer true.  For any subdomain without a DMARC record, the domains above
> it in the tree are also checked, so you can specify a different policy/
> reporting address for groups of subdomains below the org domain (as long as
> you don't get past the max N value in length).

Huh, what?  Whatever the tree walk finds is by definition the org domain. 
It's the same whether you're using it to check alignment or send reports.

> I can articulate that N=5 is based on the longest email relevant entry in the
> current PSL.  Why N=8 and not N=7 or N=9?

Seth says there are people who need N=8 but for business reasons he can't 
tell us who they are.  I'm not thrilled about that but I see little 
downside to bumping the number up to 8.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly