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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On June 30, 2022 7:12:42 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Wed 29/Jun/2022 19:17:05 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, the example is contrived, but since there are no rules limiting delegation to third parties, we cannot be sure how subdomains are going to evolve.
>> 
>> My view is that we are in a case that is sufficiently obscure that the answer to complaints should be "then don't do that".  We should move on to other critical topics like what to call the tag.
>
>
>It is difficult to find the right names for the tags when we look at them and still don't know whether we see rabbits or ducks.
>
>Perhaps there should be an appendix making examples of how to structure cascades of private PSDs, also showing how the algorithm behaves in such corner cases?


I don't think it merits such a treatment.  99.9 (plus some number of additional nines) percent of domains, no one will even need to think about the psd= tag.  For the likely no more than dozens of domains that really need psd=y it is relatively straightforward and I think we provide sufficient guidance already.  It's possible that the multiple layer monstrosity we're discussing here exists, but I think it is unlikely.

Adding a lot of text to explain this small a corner case at best slows down the working group and at worst creates an attractive nuisance that causes someone to overthink their situation and make a deployment error.

Let's move on.

Scott K