Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Alessandro Vesely <> Sat, 13 July 2019 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD890120115 for <>; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MslCVaQiOY5G for <>; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 10:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ADA7120108 for <>; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 10:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1563038535; bh=TXGRl2U76eYm4Uph42q/+ugvgGc4YzbyxKKJt1DHgO0=; l=1305; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BkG7Zuw6NiW+8M0ivnd+Dsi/y1+XoUGX8r14qYJLKXCKK/HKCdqOoKPiklWoHq/77 aiov0XnXV9lcDrvh64tCWsddDdGEfgL2J0JD0fhLPXX3hnkOAMPu6MQUvmTKhY626D sJU0R3YBmQGRnpeOihdQfCO8J9EdC9By3MC6DTgAwhpW2AIVeEeYIrTlFlBYp
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] ([]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1.2, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC081.000000005D2A1347.00003D0F; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:22:15 +0200
References: <> <> <> <1851683.DtEN5jD5Wj@l5580>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:22:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1851683.DtEN5jD5Wj@l5580>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 17:33:22 -0000

On Fri 12/Jul/2019 19:30:35 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2019 6:07:50 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to
>>> implement are needed
>> Appendix B.1 lacks a criterion to establish enlisting.  Couldn't we
>> require an explicit statement about seizing DMARC reports in, say, the
>> delegation report?  Alternatively, that policy can be stated in a
>> well-known place under the delegation services URL, so that
>> registrants know what they do.
> It's in the appendix because we don't have a clear path forward.  This is part 
> of the experiment.  We need to be careful though since different PSDs operate 
> under different authorities and controls, so there is a point beyond which it's 
> not the IETF that decides.

I should have written more clearly the two issues.  One is the
criterion.  I hypothesized that all what is needed to gran enlistment
to a PSO is that its policy to seize DMARC at PSD level be published,
so that registrant can learn about is before registering.  Is that
correct?  I mean does a public statement suffice?

The second issue is how to publish. In case the answer to the 1st
question is yes, would https://PSO.tld/.well-known/dmarc-psd/policy do?