Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <3104294.rU99Ex2XNH@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>My understanding is that, since, as you say, PSOs (like .bank) have a pre-
>existing relationship with their registrants, they don't need PSD DMARC to 
>audit their registrant's policies.  For an entity like that, it offers the 
>chance to get feedback on other, presumably non-existent, domains so as to 
>better understand abuse patterns within the PSD they manage.  It also gives 
>them a mechanism to express a reject policy for those domains, which does not 
>currently exist.  This may help improve rejection of cousin domains by 
>receivers.
>
>For single entity PSDs, like for a very large Internet company that is, 
>conveniently not named after a large South American rain forest (so they can 
>get it registered), it offers other advantages.  In cases like this, the PSD 
>operates like an organizational domain except for the fact that in the current 
>DMARC instantiation, their record won't work for subdomains.  PSD DMARC would 
>enable '.example' to publish a single record for all lower level entries in 
>the zone.

That all seems reasonable but it still feels like a lot of mechanism for
marginial benefit, particularly since we have no clue who's going to run it
if we can't foist it off on Mozilla.

I wonder if there's any way to get the PSL to tag vanity TLDs.

R's,
John