Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 11 October 2020 09:52 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 78EC23A0475 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 02:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, 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 K7aUKm8cY7cn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 02:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 ED2D93A045E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 02:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1602409942; bh=DmK6dOm4U7L0JoAiZFsEG+1ibgsuYOkGdoSOx7eaaYU=; l=945; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DYP89q16bDy6FsEeALZ1m4JSfPy/kyqt27wGcK9A0R4XPjwzCW0c/EN6N2/XTFL3H Wurwcd7rGxL4R1TwUE32cZ0lWyXiFY7XGkyVLrMVxTvWTMGEm8bvm5PYPB1T/zmOG/ uJJJYhYQIXu9FTMK7MUwQbfZ/XIJxmzKtTzEILU3z7MRtWhYRtPxC14kDmOca
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: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC050.000000005F82D5D6.00005BBC; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:52:22 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <4666D39F-85F5-4AD2-A754-11FED0A5C169@kitterman.com> <871rogwc0h.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <a909c28d-8dfc-9178-f13c-ba971e7199ce@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:52:21 +0200
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: <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/30hKQ0KpdtCM3BeLI_qfbNNkoz4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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, 11 Oct 2020 09:52:27 -0000

On Sat 10/Oct/2020 00:52:14 +0200 Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
> Here's the link to the diff.
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-09


For a nit:

    o  Provides controls to mitigate potential privacy considerations
       associated with this extension

I don't think one would mitigate considerations.  Either address 
considerations, or mitigate leakage.


In Section 4.1:
OLD:
                                                              Feedback
    Reports carry more detailed information and present a greater risk.

NEW:
                                                              Failure
    Reports carry more detailed information and present a greater risk.


The title of Appendix A is misleading.  The experiment is not limited to 
privacy concerns.  Shouldn't it be entitled just "The Experiment"?


Later in Appendix A:

    o  Section 3.2 modifies policy discovery to add an additional DNS
       lookup.

Isn't that Section 3.5 «Changes in Section 6.6.3 "Policy Discovery"»?


Best
Ale
--