Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 D8F94120803 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:47:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=gKz/dgvb; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=kSxPP1vQ
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 RvmR7v6L4Dh6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:47:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DE90120122 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:47:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 64469 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2019 22:47:48 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fbd3.5dc9e514.k1911; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=DS6eYLdK3Yy39hRPiT3HKFnQZTKBlARw7O6y1OaVFNI=; b=gKz/dgvbAXJwS7J65JXoLo6D9tYUs+kOp8BPSVVJ86TCV1iNnaw3F7IKS+d5Df/5zYZzvZ7SfWZmcU5udQ9wJKSb3QjZfgQHxeRhnDT581YZuK84mehzqwLYxw7BBCROrxzX0cjQ/KZF3Z+A+NI+swikyH8ZHj1S8VDsw3fzEM7ORZgBdE6mZd1qaWQ4qhNA2dg+z2R2YVRdfXoNjYdpWLUCg/mY7ikaKc2Ce5cGV59sTL8P1h37nRu21mg3P5Gb
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fbd3.5dc9e514.k1911; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=DS6eYLdK3Yy39hRPiT3HKFnQZTKBlARw7O6y1OaVFNI=; b=kSxPP1vQ++VtxnhpStKvxUy3dABtCRfUNVlHLaOTMNp57GSuUychelpL1lUrMsJ2Q4aqEI9oUNt+/VnxwaQQrAf8Knl883+f4ft3oTrdFyI0PRtFJneuuTkvhcYxMW0jsbRvTGs2ZaIpVreNkUCWcCsy1no7noj3oxoRILchBa0+TSxEvkRiIKQtpNFYzQxjKtggXmL56vrhTvilT9QE0C45ql2kuBXo8k1DYgjUaTs7B6pHsn427DXic65rl5Ox
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP6; 11 Nov 2019 22:47:48 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2CE39EA3394; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:47:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: 11 Nov 2019 17:47:47 -0500
Message-Id: <20191111224748.2CE39EA3394@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
In-Reply-To: <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-hxSR_ARN587TMo56CQ27EK9p8E>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 22:47:52 -0000

In article <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net>; you write:
>This goes to the essential challenge of a proposal like PSD.  It 
>embodies a particular model, in the absence of clarity about the model 
>or broad-based discussion of its appropriateness.  (Note, for example, 
>that my review offered some discussion of that sort but got no comment 
>on that discussion.)
>
>In effect, it creates a strategic solution -- that is, a long-lived and 
>embedded mechanism -- without a clear and broad understanding of the 
>organizational space it is working in.

I've been talking to some of the PSL people, and they seem really
stuck.  They know they don't have a way to describe vanity
single-registrant TLDs, and I don't even want to suggest that they
might want to describe something like PSD, with a super-authority
above a suffix boundary.

R's,
John