IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed Introduction and Abstract (was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-00.txt)

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 14 December 2020 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 73AB53A0EA9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 01:46:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 XNzSD2OvNTsT for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 01:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 01A343A0EA8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 01:46:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607939203; bh=ntzb9MFCOX5fKfVshdm38wX1e3ZefYy6X4043eNLIws=; l=12480; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C/JMiPS6DfVZI86fPHunIMZkF8u+msozyP2A9DbwqCS+BAO2eyL0wJxS+mqEZx/EU iQ3eNfD4UXOqGEXjxh9ghKGh4J8ihhK3n8BJ7exG1JKscymzUIkfXvIYY45YyPfPo0 a4F2YALXXguI7XiMCpcP2Q+/zUq7gHibMaGyjzb60cmILfVmbnSSys/As3Mj/
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0C3.000000005FD73483.00000BE9; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:46:43 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <160513169495.16356.6565556939968267867@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHej_8=hvo2f6f_d3tYs2xVV1JnGvQsuqxFqJXJKmgfpTiSO3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHej_8mzRo4cxxLrpeVZTcKC032OexK21=UgNhNDiTcRy713xA@mail.gmail.com> <3a5548b7-cb41-1533-93c3-dbecc800be19@gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <990c30f2-d49c-94fa-3f16-87af9972ca86@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:46:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3a5548b7-cb41-1533-93c3-dbecc800be19@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------5125213DFB49292669BCBA4F"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/0wLF8klu2tShSpcP9oWvmaLwH-o>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed Introduction and Abstract (was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-00.txt)
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, 14 Dec 2020 09:46:47 -0000

On Sat 12/Dec/2020 15:45:31 +0100 Dave Crocker wrote:
> Repeating from the Abstract:
> 
>     DMARC Builds on these protocols. DMARC permits the owner of an author's
>     domain name to enable validation of the domain's use, to indicate the
>     implication of failed validation, and to request reports about use of the
>     domain name. Mail receiving organizations can use this information when
>     evaluating disposition choices for incoming mail.
> 
> The 'domain' in ADMD is not the same as in 'domain name' and, arguably, DMARC 
> has nothing to do with ADMDs, but only with domain names.  This is an important 
> distinction.  The linkage between the two comes from operational arrangement, 
> not anything inherent in DMARC.  I'm not sure how to reflect this fact in the 
> text. /d


I find the phrase "owner of an author's domain name" rather ungraceful.  In all 
of its length, it doesn't contain the word "mail".  Couldn't we call it just 
the *mail domain*, the thing after the at-sign?  The concept is so common that 
hardly needs using multiple words to indicate it.

ADMD is a declining term, possibly confused with x'400 stuff (see ngram).  I'd 
rather stick to *Organizational Domain*.


Best
Ale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email