Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 23 January 2021 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B848B3A15F6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:01:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id imETPtfY0fBD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:01:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com (mail-ot1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 530073A15F5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:01:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id v21so6959829otj.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:01:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bmW8NF4YbTgZMrFAK3D9I2DPObZhZT09dPDmOb5Wt70=; b=oGkj86eFSutvAOlFtM5faj43gmWPafGaBXYS5reZJFh8d+JW6uHzKVSvhf6SIDRCTk asMb40u/1Dm7dV0LYLy5z8o1C5odXU0Z53t7ZZf8KsLYzuV2F4Vd2evx3PdpWrEKafdx UCcvWa5TnO3Wtt2+QpntYi1At904Y7/N8HZtJ7abzfy9gbceeOKDZeOjVHrXAJ1ySKk8 77YvSSJOKIbsqEa9pnuWWHqIx7qesLs3IUoFODv5uwptV3AkM6SJOdzmza7drphwrK27 ZEBuUVOws0t4K0EfA6QBQdfHxl8fmoLfyguuBgp9KyLjRFrvLri5zm0A5/LgZXvAfAWk asfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bmW8NF4YbTgZMrFAK3D9I2DPObZhZT09dPDmOb5Wt70=; b=WraB8u/5mtX10gd2XQP59pzehxewXQhVh+1IXiAUT3mrj+YNp6i6jtS+YUNiVZVMMA 43k6Hn5rUzUVJ2Smm2pHd7UgqzWofAWQMX9hZJZwIPGDNzpCyf9TcE1ZG/DKklRWdd/p GYJ7El1OrtegGLAlQMz/JH0umiulgvevB9qH+xQQLg7EqL9q/+CKvpR3jm6oZ5SWN70M x6P/IB0fIjfYsXGLi5FQPttMkk3yAe6rOlz5MW2mBswYcoxci3uw9p7d8C/87pgRMLSy Sl3m6t+t6UOrC06tdhdNQO++fHk1lfjxFu4ODZ1TjNfhyc4HGxF0hTsVRbZ1h6LlVwoB UI5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330hFdc4bQbD+zTAhxlmQN68e3F8S4eH1lMz7XdoTQThPjaGMaH HtwobAPelewdMb1h3P3IxqQD/KxqMQ9aDstisa8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrUw4r/Gik4sdcOPR4WzRJEz/RgUFgkq+tVVVptgd+PDScy4472yci9Qm/UlcI5/lPepaURVmd+eZjg3HdBus=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1254:: with SMTP id s20mr5333557otp.155.1611363713161; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:01:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com> <87ima4wu3s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL0qLwbiOrgsEjZU_V6W8e42SRNoUh7CzyngRMR5RLeQpzrxaQ@mail.gmail.com> <44eec884-a3c7-f0e3-4545-1032369ad3fd@tana.it> <CAL0qLwavpE9r6+O+Dm5EyDYzP9_pTpTbbjMzL1mPTyJky5CKmA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Hn5G_WSHjrD3gLL5HwZxDGoV_wxgAuiPc_sutQ4OYhNg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1oxkNUB_E8Q5do5xCruxXGvqY2461u0ZMZ1J5BFE8dTqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwb9RUBTTfwNNLn+do1iNE-A1Ke-NcW+SidqhJqd3BdPig@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1qLPkVQFDxUKXsgzqoK4Qcd7Rn5Q4bOed_4WkVv-FuB7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qLPkVQFDxUKXsgzqoK4Qcd7Rn5Q4bOed_4WkVv-FuB7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 20:01:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+FejAGbv8TLrGXpV_Crgi1KErKK_1-6=2jzZh+QbguK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba1d7205b986d9ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-gkTsxvXajoTnTtf_sMtjejNqcw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 01:01:56 -0000

Kurt

Since this is an experiment, Appendix A discusses the updates that happen.
we don't actually say explicitly "if the experiment is a success, the
following changes will be made" and perhaps I should add some wording like
that.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:58 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:57 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:55 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the paragraph in question
>>>>
>>>>      <t>To determine the organizational domain for a message under
>>>> evaluation,
>>>>         and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC makes use
>>>> of a Public Suffix
>>>>         List. The process for doing this can be found in Section 3.2 of
>>>> the DMARC
>>>>         specification.</t>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The concern that I have with this wording is that it is (potentially)
>>> misleading. "How" DMARC determines the org domain does not matter at all to
>>> this spec. The important point is that we go to "org-1" in the tree for
>>> this extra lookup.
>>>
>>
>> This is just establishing context for why we're doing what the rest of
>> the document says (i.e., what problem we're solving).  Leaving this out
>> seems to me to paint an incomplete picture; Section 3 basically describes a
>> delta, but a delta to what?
>>
>
> And if DMARC changes how it determines the org domain, where does that
> leave this spec?
>
> --Kurt
>