Re: [dmarc-ietf] Thoughts on choosing N

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:02 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr=
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> I would propose the following first draft of expository text regarding
> setting N at 8:
>
> The point of the Tree Walk is to allow for the publishing and discovery of
> DMARC policy records at any level in the DNS hierarchy that strikes a
> balance between what the domain registrant deems reasonable and what
> operational needs deem reasonable. The setting of N is done with an eye to
> putting a thumb on the scale on the side of operational needs, to guard
> against the truly silly or abusive cases with domain names with label
> counts in the dozens or even triple digits. Based on an observation at the
> time of publishing that RFC5322.From domains with seven labels were in
> active but uncommon use, eight was chosen as the value of N in order to not
> only accommodate for current usage but also to allow for a bit of future
> expansion of the depth of the name space used for RFC5322.From domains.
>
>
If it's not already there someplace, maybe a sentence or two about the
impact of higher and lower values would be helpful (e.g., lower cost/better
speed vs. accuracy).

-MSK, p11g