Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #113 - DMARCbis -01 Introduction Section

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 04 June 2021 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C60B3A24E7 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PwcXdpm_o6Zv for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A626B3A24E5 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id pi6-20020a17090b1e46b029015cec51d7cdso5017475pjb.5 for <>; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=PTc6//m+6YOl81YaBfeht7zpet2DX1BzvW81uC1ImsY=; b=OENh2QRX+8Vj+13qzCjFfygKrlaERKyq8BX4yJiwJetibXNVa/525DoTwzCUbZXVpE 72D3Un4vzhE02Xdc34Xlc5lKJeH5sV3U4VcejohUdBh+UgyJDjQq8BwzgLhR+A8GmWC5 1F6f8hv6yIhha3b0y3wgdm/N2sAsL05Cz/kZJO26XfDvEfW8hKDO9iOb7DYQMcs3PPsT kCBSh3lWcUJE9a1QGlQcbkFtWS/OYuVnl1Flrd4feZUnMurn7yA9FnF6Cv6GGybQSitM M4WooIwncSeDpubn/3NZL39njnLZPeJY8HRNhRMG+XjblfWjDYbbbq60S2vw3wBbm69Y ZFuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=PTc6//m+6YOl81YaBfeht7zpet2DX1BzvW81uC1ImsY=; b=TkE95LpjdKSK47DAtwTdVvmmphFh758txQDOJvDNBU+qRgr8G2Wpsr61Vh8+FIgFAB rT46nwLtWDyEXipaoHFLPG0t+aEer9iDRxocTcrzQn91MF2yddHyLWiuhzZo2XMeOTAH /yKHZNQOWulXOn2FwOAj7JyLpuuW2eGRuUc7hfNxheIzHUVED7pbPFpB7zxcKR75HJ3/ hLhadio9pPgv9z14JYgR0LKGQQOX/kyOWHoP18jQ6AevyAlCb1fk59d3uHrar9DmP91C ePyKT0HKh33Dt/f4yJ36Tj+2DEaTC1yrehQ1uQ/Sh3586YhZAUyy9f0Az1SIFD6wtvva 45Sg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kHSu7ZQgBMso8rF4wyBxi4CPOfMjuWe2OnSimhN+fbBOc3prZ IjPLh198AbSqHkWEt0XAUwiaybupxZirdw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzw/3H6Ndjy0aKTMymKcrxFIQ6rIhSl16/4goODli6lZ4smd5NMk23p2ZEe6GHzaPTXR42t3A==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a3c3:b029:f0:b297:7778 with SMTP id q3-20020a170902a3c3b02900f0b2977778mr2152483plb.16.1622775023602; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v3sm338595pfb.203.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Crocker <>
To: Todd Herr <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:50:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------48608DF85815D484140E63BB"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #113 - DMARCbis -01 Introduction Section
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 02:50:30 -0000

(this time without an attachment...)

On 5/5/2021 11:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
> We would like to achieve rough consensus on this section of text by 
> Friday, May 21.

Apologies.  I've only just been able to review this text. Here's a link 
to suggested changes, done as a Word document with revision tracking 
turned on:

    (I suggest looking at the document without the revision tracks being

It might appear that the edits effect major substance changes to the 
Introduction, but I believe they do not; the intent was to retain the 
same goals for the Introduction.

Changes were driven by:

  * Providing better lead-in for readers with less background on the
    document's topic
  * Eliminating detail that is not need in an introduction
  * Minimizing PSO text, since I belive the covered domains have Domain
    Owners whether they are PSOs or not; hence the fact of being a PSO
    has minimal import in the Introduction
  * General wordsmithing, to tighten things up


Dave Crocker

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross