Re: [dmarc-ietf] Final, I hope, tweaks to the tree walk

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On July 20, 2022 2:49:47 AM UTC, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>It appears that Scott Kitterman  <[e-mail]> said:
>>The PSD definition is probably overlong already:
>>
>>> 3.2.8.  Public Suffix Domain (PSD)
>>> 
>>>    The global Internet Domain Name System (DNS) is documented in
>>>    numerous RFCs.  It defines a tree of names starting with root, ".",
>>>    immediately below which are Top-Level Domain names such as ".com" and
>>>    ".us".  The domain name structure consists of a tree of names, each
>>>    of which is made of a sequence of words ("labels") separated by
>>>    period characters.  The root of the tree is simply called ".".  The
>>>    Internet community at large, through processes and policies external
>>>    to this work, selects points in this tree at which to register domain
>>>    names "owned" by independent organizations.  Real-world examples of
>>>    these points are ".com", ".org", ".us", and ".gov.uk".  Names at
>>>    which such registrations occur are called "Public Suffix Domains
>>>    (PSDs)", and a registration consists of a label selected by the
>>>    registrant to which a desirable PSD is appended.  For example,
>>>    "ietf.org" is a registered domain name, and ".org" is its PSD.
>
>I would chop a lot of that out.  If people don't already know how DNS names
>work, they're not going to be able to use DMARC.

I agree.

>>My thought is to add text based on the above mail to the paragraph:
>>
>>PSDs are important to DMARC because subdomains of a PSD are different 
>>organizations and subdomains of non-PSDs are part of the same organization.
>
>That seems OK.

Great.  How about adding that and I'll take another look at the overall definition later in the week.

Scott K