Re: [dmarc-ietf] 5.5.4. Publish a DMARC Policy for the Author Domain - dmarcbis-06

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 10:49:03 PM EDT John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman  <[e-mail]> said:
> >Somewhat later than I had hoped, I've taken a shot at this.  Please see the
> >attached proposed update from dmarcbis-06 and rfcdiff.
> 
> Closer but of course, not quite right.
> 
> >2.  In the policy discovery section I added a few sentences on which policy
> >to use once the policy record is identified.  This doesn't change anything
> >relative to what's currently defined, but it seems to me that if we are
> >going to have a discussion of policy discovery we should take it all the
> >way to determining the poilcy and not stop at the determination of the
> >record to use to determine the policy.
> 
> It still gets the wrong answer for psd=n above psd=y.
> 
> I think it needs to say you walk up. At each step if you find psd=n,
> that is the org domain and you stop. If you find psd=y, that is the
> PSD, the org is the name beneath it, and you stop. (If the one beneath
> it has no DMARC record, is it still the org domain? I think it is.)
> 
> If you get to the top and there was no record with psd=y or psd=n, the
> org is the highest DMARC record you found.
> 
> This means if you find psd=n or psd=y you stop, if you find psd=u keep
> going.

I think the attached addresses this.  I also tried to make it clear that if 
there's only one domain (common 5322.From, 5321.MailFrom, and d=), then no 
tree walk is needed.

The diff is relative the last text I posted.

Scott K