Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 C2D9A130DD0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 17:05:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=zf7vq77c; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=knw/N8pj
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 3nBYvKyS1hPl for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 17:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A24512F1AB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 17:05:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1541725551; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=vB4m75ZjX39zptkeUdfUtI/A5N7l3hNGuGidPnISNXY=; b=zf7vq77czygegCgOcfWBMei5IKiyNnUWjbGUeotESE4v3JkH5oHU+vpA pG52SvaOPqVPJRh9aJhA66olID+SDw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1541725551; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=vB4m75ZjX39zptkeUdfUtI/A5N7l3hNGuGidPnISNXY=; b=knw/N8pjPE+6U70genGLqlL6bgHbddlZkGWcS87B8yjRnow6urp9N9SB NvNTQyS+5u3ThbKdgkHyQT+DgtpVV1HIrDqfNX4v7nINKL+NFtbfr4PCvM TeNduH1u0hzmO2ljBR6R6hDfHzdg/QIKC3I/YTwVFVrCdA8jOsBdDHHLJ+ FEOdSEQUNwlQkcJPYq59CiK3K1V6G0UwfD7n96s+LWDvYcIZXKz/U+tYC1 ytCHXvTRc/2n5+OV5hXyU6go842MZ1dPvZS+RTLK7yUJKPKT86QsND64rx IRUfbbteaeXBjN5+REce86XjymhJBcQ9QD0jDBtHaEUae5HPyDKGqg==
Received: from [192.168.1.146] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E3A7C40198; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 19:05:51 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 01:05:04 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZF55yaxZKYY8AQdcRfUr2WjMwfpd2FVWn3hCR67_E5eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABuGu1o4E-Svt9N++RaFvO4SATt3Wh1w7gZb1OdBSVRCm7Odmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCQmV5agORght0XWr27kDD+OkaEZcKcaDtE8wLG0Yi-YA@mail.gmail.com> <dee0fd86-40e3-e01d-6c70-2f467759be8b@tana.it> <93BFC1AD-9CC4-4CB4-89E1-A735AF5CD8E4@kitterman.com> <635dea71-2077-9a1a-e7a2-8594697e1068@tana.it> <AB35FEF5-74C9-400D-9A7F-543F9CAA215D@kitterman.com> <CABuGu1pXaXioyPTV6OXD3hWBXVjt5+kk0dqaZwbDcKaU+Y6q5A@mail.gmail.com> <446b8d5d-c059-a7d7-c38f-9c3a92241adf@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZF55yaxZKYY8AQdcRfUr2WjMwfpd2FVWn3hCR67_E5eg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <C905829B-3B0E-4DCE-94BD-AC87AD21051A@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4J6kn8O-P_E_u7dW1BxEg5biazc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items
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, 09 Nov 2018 01:05:56 -0000


On November 8, 2018 6:19:38 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> > and maybe it can solve the "PSL problem" if we can constrain the
>problem
>> > space to just the DMARC issues instead of recreating the
>> > DBOUND-solve-for-all morass.
>>
>> This problem is simpler than DBOUND.  Looking up text policies is
>common
>> to a
>> handful of protocols.  A careful wording might make some statements
>> reusable in
>> general, even if the focus is kept on DMARC.
>>
>
>Sure, the DMARC case is half of what DBOUND tried to tackle.  If DBOUND
>had
>focused just on the DMARC use case, it would've succeeded.
>
>If possible, we should be careful to create a solution that's
>extensible to
>other use cases, not exclusive of them.  Reviewing what DBOUND tried to
>do
>might be very instructive here.
>
>-MSK

Independent of the current discussion about the new PSD DMARC draft, I think this would be a great idea.  

DBOUND was set up to provide, among other things, a specific input that DMARC needs.  The failure of that working group left DMARC with a hole in its design.  Operators use the Mozilla PSL as an ad hoc mechanism to fill that hole.

If we can actually solve the problem in a useful way, then that's great for DMARC.  I propose we add a second work item for this piece of work, since it's independent of PSD DMARC.  If no one else wants to define the work item, I can do it.

Scott K