Re: [dmarc-ietf] A tweak to draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 01 March 2020 12:46 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 07D0E3A0E6E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:46:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
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, 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 SYsUik983G-8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:46:56 -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 206EE3A0E37 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:46:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1583066811; bh=Jb6T+WZmdGyRaSdnIBux591Re2tcFpKfNCgeWWI070E=; l=576; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BaVSQHdD3h62IxvUpRxtRjCRWIzPoeMXCOt8vl2lXm5Yem7NJAfso3SdTnVFVvQA6 G9hKOOjes7jmQyE+EepKgftjHfCAlBWOrj4ziCku9JHAvgROcLbpjKV1XZX3eeg0wU 9dHfTWVupF8Wz4AR87kSxwpsNirjYnhlmkUbeS1lkCxoZ1E8zkGaaB8hZUSYz
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC02A.000000005E5BAEBB.0000542A; Sun, 01 Mar 2020 13:46:51 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwaU4-74Lq5vYTBMhkj60i+zAbY6JQdOdTVyUoY=pd+QvA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Hajp=hX9=8VVJLOJVZ82gLQmOaOJ7BAOhuXtzGi77ogw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwae955bAGNBYmPjTD+U0tJcniyXZa2CZ_2G47C6Pj+k5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <9a8c0ba6-6a0c-070d-4c44-9eb00fb68e26@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 13:46:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwae955bAGNBYmPjTD+U0tJcniyXZa2CZ_2G47C6Pj+k5A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2iuWT91O6xL2F7r9MrWHQU5J2g4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A tweak to 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: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 12:46:58 -0000

On Sat 29/Feb/2020 20:19:27 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I'm ambivalent at this stage about whether this makes it into the PSD document,
> but please someone do add it to the queue for DMARCbis.


Done:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/34#ticket

That definition makes a neat distinction between "Public Suffix" and "Public
Suffix List".  From there, I think it will be easier to give a semantic
definition of "Organizational Domain" which leads to a good enough, although
possibly not optimal, practical tool for its determination.


Best
Ale
--