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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Tue, 03 December 2019 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF95B120046 for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Kzh6_aCcvr_l for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9BF512002F for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t184so1496071vka.1 for <>; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nKrKSyqdkFtH/zTYwbgEeCSR7GFS8kq2GQQKYMTVh+k=; b=szL2ntEpt6dZETpKfP2qCXmuocJtk/hDVocQkjrbZeJ83pDdKwMcmt03VZZi4geA17 CmWlXMZZb3bIBGmDlxZFwQjKOXPGXKVemRGDTdW3ElTiUTJ6lsODbMi3JBW1GZUmrMGC TQ6GmoHypyd5kIp2TR1AHp/ACdRuCKAdH259pvqvi83DRbGcUJLf59GwP0LOJ2tnh4hx Hieb02Tz/OjMTGRSdO8h38kyOB7b+Tkg6ZltK0VtQ4hYg3yjuJLQ1lJqSGhoVI18KuDv mGdA/U9J9MSyEla0+KqAARgIoqJBl1W3XZLiftCfoOSFB7WXvwMcK97q1mWJGBheHOt5 4VeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nKrKSyqdkFtH/zTYwbgEeCSR7GFS8kq2GQQKYMTVh+k=; b=A/od8fI7SGQmme/l6SXJv51nHE5uNdD04Dyj0/eWQwdXxmBztaP33q3OsROe3rFWrh 7iUUnLj3S1BViTo9rVmnmBXbYBYKTvbh5HV77XCcX+9/8S4XKK0SWsXPiShHc6Fkg+g2 4lm9JljohZkDtbjYxnbfUs11S2nT5V7dGWWQpiYjDcap32JBt2SYC8Ifzt41nfeDX99n NjSJFGpvoK7Fqm+myvYMx8OPdQG4U6nPUUOOlzF2vOVYA2X+D3+lPRiLIqlDFkoxkEyW ndpyW0zPPk4BwZTGoB4Qg2lz3kHdnuGKg4XQmCx7HzPKqfsCbCfqiwplHDBYLLQZaoBs XppA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXryvn3QW6Xupy6KYHxAsZv3MUAKw6Cl64yNPvQcdBen7JNkK9b 9UMIBRyblASDyfxHm5SQ/oT3Hrjq1suGmZym5I3Y+A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIgUupsIMgY00efye39BVB3MtBUuIMsu/rIaPebu/Bp8AbZ9CKh76oERXfuTr7IW4TDSro+ThCR4RjVJ6vLNg=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:ccc7:: with SMTP id c190mr5085628vkg.15.1575405652623; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:40:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:41 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Dave Crocker <>
Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>, Tim Wicinski <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d466d0598d2b692"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 20:40:56 -0000

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <> wrote:

> On 11/10/2019 11:34 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> * add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is
> an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the revision
> of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form of
> anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the
> experiment's participants;
> Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience
> and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly
> naive view.
> The IETF does standards, not experiments.  Not /real/ experiments.  What
> it calls an experiment mostly serves as market testing, with a smidgen of
> engineering tuning later.  For the most part, IETF experiments produce an
> accepted/failed/needs-small-revisions range of results.  What it does /not/
> produce is results along the lines of "that was interesting, now let's
> start fresh and do the real standard."
> Perhaps there are exampls of IETF experiments that have permitted entirely
> starting over, but mostly those only happen when there is a complete
> failure, and those typically are called experiments.
Should I take this as advocating for running the experiment without
publishing an RFC about it?  Or do you have another suggestion?

I don't think the idea of going back and fixing the DMARC-PSL separation
issue first is tenable given how long it will take, compared to the urgent
need to get some data here.