IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 11 July 2022 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 59CD9C14F75F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=N3vZ4wN/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=KNGMfxoD
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Sey1ZC_JPTX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E5B8C188732 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68404 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2022 19:54:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=10b32.62cc7ff2.k2207; bh=ZjLHnonig31V2QkYbq3d7V9MMLTRIOdrleR4w1l3f1c=; b=N3vZ4wN/EPqCeURA3kcNuQWyLLdqD3dpI2op7HdRjYxlfGARNZCbLy84h64ocIOzVBcimA7NiIcjh6hAcI90EW4GWpw+3yhuYhG8W3XKW/J8q3/ef8n0LPBHWtfUPuVVeC4vSDk6RnHGW6e139d7up/ccE/4twgyEG+l7rLrB0AeTK9vWobY3OhQmC6jERHV3ewzCnlwC+eyGsKCqsNya9slkfrzFHEqqCDWaXVZzax9JjqUABs9yiLqCOkHkL6wQTjLqUWhNPT5zg8mpiuIfQordb3G0gN4Tnq70nuvjsZqxGYlYjgRNw2pxQP+Ys6bTPqJ2Gf0AnoEHGyYDKD8ig==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=10b32.62cc7ff2.k2207; bh=ZjLHnonig31V2QkYbq3d7V9MMLTRIOdrleR4w1l3f1c=; b=KNGMfxoD9Z3AMm+6oMkiIZdBp680QjzUwwVoUa9cxbhhrZi6+B9hpUuLoln+xL4KkGVytlUwH9kRe2gcEMzPB0bA0DE3K6o26ZKZRQYGsSajJVVmoFoMsx3xIo/vHsyYCMGougY13QeTI7GZXkZgnIWoupYSiB00HVIHRfHOCPlRSw3az1/BCVF9aDqrrFP60ooOMOg0aWib5/SJChifF72uyceklYW7jr9tQvv/Xmf34/MnIi0ofz4HeAmn8hKGCOps3LHeOaZAhHyL1x1NKfXksiOc1D34Bn67g0UCmrpq8YtTgYWZ25qTu6VJ5zkDCpaEMWyPFooJThihjrrv2Q==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 11 Jul 2022 19:54:25 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id EF35E4564F67; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:54:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4657E4564F49; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:54:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:54:25 -0400
Message-ID: <5197ba5f-9de4-d838-1579-eae67683e2d4@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, dmarc@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <c4a7fd03-eae8-497f-3133-73523a9c1ca2@tana.it>
References: <20220710010547.DB3B04532F40@ary.qy> <d8716435-8a52-dac4-ede2-6c27fced7f0f@tana.it> <84DDA91C-26E2-4803-8C6C-0369ED67298F@kitterman.com> <c4a7fd03-eae8-497f-3133-73523a9c1ca2@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9ZA19BYitzHqJhkqKmZbllWonnQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:54:51 -0000

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> We are proposing an alternative to the PSL without having any experience of 
> it.  I think a Proposed Standard should give full explanations of design 
> choices, so that possible, future amendments can be thoughtful and 
> considered.

Could you explain, preferably in detail, why Appendix A.6 in the draft 
doesn't do that?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email