Re: [dbound] DBOUND - updated use cases?

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

>> Sort of ironically with all of the stuff about DMARC using the PSL, we
>> are mostly done updating the DMARC spec and the largest change is that
>> it doesn't use the PSL any more.

> Sounds like a potentially good evolution.
> My response here hopefully won't be taken as me guarding PSL turf.
>
> Curious to walk through this with you.  Assuming this proceeds, I would
> anticipate there would be a gradual upgrade that happens.

Perhaps we could chat a week from now.

> What is the anticipated transition span of legacy/I-D version, and how
> would conflicting configurations between them behave?

I hope we can publish the new RFCs by the end of the year.  There are only 
a handful of DMARC implementations that matter, three open source 
libraries and whatever the big gorillas do, so I expect that new code will 
start to be phased in during 2023 with the usual infinitely long tail.

We designed it so that in most cases, there is no need to add the tags to 
your DMARC records and existing ones will continue to work correctly.  I 
took a look at every entry in the PSL that publishes a DMARC record and 
found only a handful where the new tags are important, all run by people 
we know who will presumably update them.

> At what point can I update the PSL Wiki to reflect that DMARC no longer
> needs entries?

We'll let you know.  Depends when people upgrade their software.

> Can you share URL so I don't have to hunt?

The drafts are in github at https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc

The main one is draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis.  We've split out the reporting 
parts which don't have any interesting changes.

Or there are fairly up to date snapshots in the datatracker

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly