Re: [dmarc-ietf] Bridging the gap

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 11:57:08 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Wed 15/Jun/2022 19:47:42 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <[e-mail]> said:
> >>I think we found the few critical domains which need a flag.
> >>
> > We may have found some domains that need a psd flag, but it's silly to
> > assert we have found all or even most of them.
> > 
> > The PSL has 9300 entries and there are surely far more places in the DNS
> > than that where you want sibling domains to be separate.
> 
> Is there someone who is going to contact, on behalf of the WG, the domains
> that were found in order to have their owners publish psd= flags before the
> RFC is published?

It is a project I intend to work on once the psd= tag has been assigned.  
Until the working group has settled on it more definitively than "it's in the 
current draft" I think it would be premature to bother them.

>From your list further down the thread, why do you think having a psd=y tag on 
gov.uk, police.uk, and mil will have?  While it would be more descriptively 
correct, I don't think there's any operational difference if it's there or not 
since sub-domains of those PSDs are controlled by one organization.

If us.com had a DMARC record, that would be worth a discussion, but they 
don't.  It's not even the ~500 domains on the PSL that have DMARC records 
published that we need to concern ourselves with, it's a small subset of them.

Scott K