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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 22 January 2021 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 809353A1574 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:28:47 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bYnxZ0Jn7uq8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0D03A1572 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id s2so4591800otp.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:28:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=S6NEuUQ2X3J2nbE7MKPy7zLu7HwPf+UeGWHJ5HwJV3Y=; b=uKl0auOaFIk8iwl2MM2Gjs6VkC2xYpYDiwMHwk2sp6NHx8lNWm17aBccuo6HgqF/aL ZYmVkDYO9ov6uVd2pupJdOuEuO76H7NgB/rdBGXjCV7Fkubpx9d7ObS6cESSMW0R4qSm 6pl4/ddpyKHNWp4pQhJS669RCWBKBMze9zlBnlWHC5AxQZTntlJJ1Co0TJbsbEj/0wa3 3U70R3P0jVDxUGMpORBxh+3N0/N5jlYHFnsbTE43QWr3Mjg2tA38TgC3wKmHfstC0bhm 4xuZwwR8WyZQvNWGVnysLKuubDsH4y12gmKCQUGB2Myrq8qXsrCYBlrNNaB+zVb8hUE/ xFRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=S6NEuUQ2X3J2nbE7MKPy7zLu7HwPf+UeGWHJ5HwJV3Y=; b=ne1sSIRUdaXDzbyehfcaUbD+Rih37z2IAWPAW0xznYmuQtpKq9wjtHZgTYLwtSGNfy CW33brgmwC13XEmaSx7qbYHYQ7MN1vdCl1VX9gA2hqlyGrHmjY41WY4sKG45RnGdwxQD iGFm4+rBgWEbs8gRoJ3G/In51EdHOKmhOD3i5OGsyOhDJWCSQHC/Dnfm9tgz6/xks8ds WP7/Yj2vWHqFiMdL0emENN7fVCadfD8WKfuESos95cgxuagIGl0vc3lBUTruueudZb1N 64i12sbvB4fRBs45KQO1M0LSQdxUYz947TeHDWon3lF6qBC7jZVyb5MXGgufB3qO/Lcw u+1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vnfdy1P+I1M3a0zQ5q/cun4PgtczjbweVg/NHYGClIIkyrEYb 9YFnHDfhrwRHRs52hbxUIM9h8C0mZPVF0vNsuwZw7S0L
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOdVHFGgYWM4uQAOF/vuD4S1bJja6P+3GoRBZgnrlfwZ+nXXsURjT4eyw+OcPnmGCsQRkozdlzRVpXrdxdPjs=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3ef6:: with SMTP id b109mr5179727otc.288.1611358124474; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:28:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com> <87ima4wu3s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL0qLwbiOrgsEjZU_V6W8e42SRNoUh7CzyngRMR5RLeQpzrxaQ@mail.gmail.com> <44eec884-a3c7-f0e3-4545-1032369ad3fd@tana.it> <CAL0qLwavpE9r6+O+Dm5EyDYzP9_pTpTbbjMzL1mPTyJky5CKmA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Hn5G_WSHjrD3gLL5HwZxDGoV_wxgAuiPc_sutQ4OYhNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhhh8k-1TN6G=UX84v-92fP22=D+Q61OL2zS_9mJmUHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbhhh8k-1TN6G=UX84v-92fP22=D+Q61OL2zS_9mJmUHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:28:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+HmH7f-3fQS0p2wHbojMkehPf50EBHTFR57cLYqVYbs3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009da14405b9858c7c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3NI0hCP5SKB0qmFmDBuO3zUmClc>
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: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 23:28:48 -0000

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:05 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thinking twice, perhaps we don't need to introduce the PSL until Section
>>>> 3.4.
>>>> In that case, strike the last two sentences of the above paragraph.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not obvious to me that this is better, but sure, let's discuss it.
>>>
>>>> Here's the paragraph in question
>>
>>      <t>To determine the organizational domain for a message under
>> evaluation,
>>         and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC makes use of
>> a Public Suffix
>>         List. The process for doing this can be found in Section 3.2 of
>> the DMARC
>>         specification.</t>
>>
>>
>>
>> The more I look at this, you need it near the top because that is where
>> the discussion
>> of the policy.  But also open to be convinced.
>>
>
> Looks good to me where it is.  I would add "(PSL)", introducing the
> acronym, right after its first use if we decide to leave it there.
>

Will do


> A formatting thing to take care of at some point: Anyplace you refer to
> DMARC, the protocol, just have it as "DMARC" (e.g., "not exempt from DMARC
> policy"); anyplace you refer to DMARC, the specification (e.g., "Section
> a.b.c of DMARC" or similar), it should be the <xref target="..."> ...
> </xref> sorta deal so that it pops out as a reference.
>
>
Argh yes - I was removing the RFC7489 references which had the XML  bits.
 oh let me do that fix up

tim