[dmarc-ietf] Is PSL+1 really the org domain?

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Wed, 04 May 2022 02:27 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 22:27:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH48Zfyy7u-mthngbwAXXJU++=mY2TTTxbL8NVhzEDOFDUUaKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ca078305de265ef8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/gxZj-Rn_BxAeui3ngFELiiLH6Ug>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Is PSL+1 really the org domain?
Precedence: list

Private registries create a problem for the PSD for DMARC specification.
The subtree underneath the PSD policy may include the PSD-registered
organization and potentially the client of that organization, if the
organization operates a private registry.

Presumably, in some cases such as .Bank, the PSO will have contractual
controls which ensure that the registered organizations will not operate
private registries.   Where this is the case, relaxed alignment is still
acceptable.   But if there is any possibility that a PSO-registered
organization might operate a private registry, now or in the future, then
the PSD policy needs to specify strict alignment.

DF

[dmarc-ietf] Is PSL+1 really the org domain? Douglas Foster