Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

I was slightly more verbose.  I'll send the updated diff for 'np' once I get 
through my email backlog.

Scott K

On Monday, July 15, 2019 8:30:35 AM EDT Tim Wicinski wrote:
> I totally agree with the logic behind the experiment.
> 
> >From a document point of view, should we not document the 'np' part of the
> 
> experiment?
> 
> "The experiment will also evaluate the effectiveness of the 'np' tag for
> non-existent subdomains. "
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
> 
> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:54:57 PM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
> > > > > 3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only
> > 
> > NXDOMAINs
> > 
> > > > The limited feedback during WGLC has been favorable to this.
> > > > 
> > > > This will require a rather larger change to the document than the
> > > > other
> > > > issues, but they are manageable and I believe I have most of the
> > 
> > relevant
> > 
> > > > text
> > > > from earlier revisions.
> > > > 
> > > > I think we should include this.
> > > 
> > > I am much more concerned with adding another tag that can only be used
> > 
> > in a
> > 
> > > PSD-DMARC record. I would be much more open to make a "normative" change
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > > the DMARC tag list (RFC 7489 section 11.4) to define np for any DMARC
> > > record, than to make this a special case for PSD-DMARC records.
> > 
> > I agree.  My intent is to add the tag to be used experimentally for any
> > DMARC
> > record.  Part of the experiment is to see if it's useful beyond PSD.
> > 
> > Scott K
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc