Re: [dmarc-ietf] the long march, WGLC editorial review of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 7, 2024 4:32:06 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> As a side effect of the switch to the tree walk approach in DMARCbis, this is
>> no longer true.  For any subdomain without a DMARC record, the domains above
>> it in the tree are also checked, so you can specify a different policy/
>> reporting address for groups of subdomains below the org domain (as long as
>> you don't get past the max N value in length).
>
>Huh, what?  Whatever the tree walk finds is by definition the org domain. It's the same whether you're using it to check alignment or send reports.
>
>> I can articulate that N=5 is based on the longest email relevant entry in the
>> current PSL.  Why N=8 and not N=7 or N=9?
>
>Seth says there are people who need N=8 but for business reasons he can't tell us who they are.  I'm not thrilled about that but I see little downside to bumping the number up to 8.

I expect that's where we end up, but I think we need something more than one of the chairs said there are secret reasons.

Scott K