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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Fri, 22 January 2021 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD4E3A154F for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:25:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 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_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 qFPs_TmEEg3X for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A037A3A1570 for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e15so3985506vsa.0 for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:25:53 -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=ekdRJYArC0aWN7dppFlGcHd0lSekivaGNi66LRrOe9w=; b=QpV4YiJr56uOjSZK8/QIJ0anwvU0rhwz40ErhL29F6ArruH7JDySEwFbwXRqbCut6u BeWmlmSe3lPOAOt0RsBdV/3917LNIbpqI8IvdSsNGADsIoVWpspKaYdxsKhML8yxeuoI CPNRtupezU98E0rwz0p+v+8l5bTmciXe02e9nrqVdJ/8bN9Ofq3pBGKWkRy4gnGwvjEW HsnJLAs1kAh8nT93dgC8vOeY4/kxesf10CzYz0M69u3/t30yAZvl594iTchsEJWIC04M 3/OiiRspw4yj+fy6JvG2QSWmdZw9NYZgwVigJPwz+a5AUiSHFomXqc1NKNMB7nkinOY3 +IKg==
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=ekdRJYArC0aWN7dppFlGcHd0lSekivaGNi66LRrOe9w=; b=JV8bD6nQdchxoLIBGMF6Hb1XthAdL0CP+DKStX0S1tWjAush7pJup5S1KMqZi2lInu 2tyiXv9wJviAg8is7JvXjpSJyTczAbU6RrGl+WH72C9bIcoNFbGpIavezMEi4qa5Gp/R wFW7jAPcdv9hBuTccYrnifQf88sojUI3FseHRhiNjeFQhlqRbbI7olXJc7SqnU9y7DZm 2oU7qdoZ/fIFhPJOAHDcjM+9GGSIk8/byCGyGtW56BtRs/ajKHjLviZ79y+7uOb/XlvM 438vG6kpLPTfE3ogE60lYwp5P8fa0kdtZcTC9UTXNf/iqPyA2xsILCKMazzCIq+qNWbu 6wDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532hx2rP0eq/D1cNJb4vBcHp/mRheSZxLLbV01KI1lUzWO1UKtpn rVURpmrCByDgC4z0gYRY9b3uNieDxFEP/iisI/A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhItuMd260gNBv6Epg/ueJmf/1CRtFpcFFLszF/oNQSg+bf/wnzprCUi/g1RthfKMSZ23IO/2N/U5kPRcbF1c=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:882:: with SMTP id 124mr251666vsi.33.1611357952504; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:25:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:25:41 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Tim Wicinski <>
Cc: Alessandro Vesely <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005d7b1505b98582ed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 23:25:58 -0000

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:05 PM Tim Wicinski <> 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.

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.

-MSK, hatless