Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On March 31, 2024 7:49:08 PM UTC, Seth Blank <seth=[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 1:40 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On March 31, 2024 5:32:13 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>>> I’m probably being pedantic here: is “gov” a domain?
>> >>> Yup, it's a domain.
>> >> I stand corrected on that.
>> >
>> >Anything that meets the DNS spec is a domain namen, e.g.,
>> argle.bargle.parp is a domain name.  If and how particular names might be
>> resolved is a topic to which the IETF and ICANN have given a certain amount
>> of attention.
>> >
>> >> Might be worth bumping up. Examples:
>> >>
>> >> execute-api.cn-north-1.amazonaws.com.cn
>> >> cn-northwest-1.eb.amazonaws.com.cn
>> >>
>> >> (Amazon seems to have most of the really long ones)
>> >
>> >None of those Amazon ones are used for mail so they're irrelevant to
>> DMARC, but see Seth's recent message.  He says he's seen mail domains 8
>> deep.
>>
>> I need to write a response to that, but he's made the claim before and
>> they are from deep within a PSD.  The idea that we need to change the
>> number as a result got no traction.
>>
>
>That's not true. There was not consensus on a new N, but there was also not
>resistance to increasing it. Multiple operators have confidential examples,
>and I also have some.
>
>Remember, the issue is with *reporting* discovery and not org domain
>lookup. Those that collect reports see the issue, but cannot break client
>confidentiality to share the examples.
>
That's not my recollection.

Are you saying as co-chair that any issue for which there was not a formal consensus call is still open for discussion?

Scott K