Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <> Tue, 03 December 2019 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9676B12003E for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:46:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HrQoOkGT3Zs7 for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD2612002F for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z90so2442084ilc.8 for <>; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:46:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fyYZnX5QCsf+g3/fi1d3+Z7cisepkSce8RmE9OhCHy0=; b=IjENUW7SwLpjlywgj9lbdHQBg7aDXWLmsRZWfyuDsNmpFqoXR3xyts40wUhgRM2iHu KH+iYJL5wahrSApyOvlMx6U1cpzX8ZNb6DIP4ehxtUA0q5bt2AfRcLHuVzHiIgkPkOcG cByA/m2/ds6PbdOHy4id8mCcKjU+gPVNM2GL8=
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=fyYZnX5QCsf+g3/fi1d3+Z7cisepkSce8RmE9OhCHy0=; b=U3Z2y0DCrMTe0pOEXgRkvbisdCvotXUAI0tLCGFt6t2ExSNRiIzb2NIV47WG+eWJqM jwe0sp2yHqY540eshexEVU9LRBgNe/1ss5Ec6cJhhdSsQeI6JcMMkUNZg8a/ksnyVTO7 N6vIJcIkRWTTQNYITiag97THziQbrn6AE1GouwVrRA4a1LAD+uwg67NeLB5xsPzxRxxS mLk+zUUmAHsPUQ3qi39MFpum5YvZIUjCtU87g+YhazDl91tXXqfrX/Cbx1FgTKgN9SZK LEiUdk/mknoHuJu7xnj2JDvg5+soBfEq7gCB3TFIUrgLgovEb/VusDlRsahl049wmneF qpaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXOQ+kO4m3uAwi0UDdpk/fdgrUaY3A6YA8hqF5W9BN4ao9DJBOD wNlIFpGjJeHSuR5IriFjiKf6CtgKqsD9uxMhzqxg8Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxczGULsU5K6V2EAFzHvHMIolhFdfB2ViKgVZ6Wdq6huIQMGanx4xQSe4LdyS9/scBzEkJQiYB9tyQEB5YQd0Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:2450:: with SMTP id k77mr98751ilk.120.1575406003081; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:46:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:46:29 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: Dave Crocker <>, Tim Wicinski <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000030e3c60598d2cb1b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on 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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 20:46:47 -0000

I think that if we could get a core set of receivers who would be willing
to test this and report on their findings in 3-6 months, that would be


On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <>

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2019 11:34 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> * add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is
>> an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the revision
>> of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form of
>> anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the
>> experiment's participants;
>> Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience
>> and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly
>> naive view.
>> The IETF does standards, not experiments.  Not /real/ experiments.  What
>> it calls an experiment mostly serves as market testing, with a smidgen of
>> engineering tuning later.  For the most part, IETF experiments produce an
>> accepted/failed/needs-small-revisions range of results.  What it does /not/
>> produce is results along the lines of "that was interesting, now let's
>> start fresh and do the real standard."
>> Perhaps there are exampls of IETF experiments that have permitted
>> entirely starting over, but mostly those only happen when there is a
>> complete failure, and those typically are called experiments.
> Should I take this as advocating for running the experiment without
> publishing an RFC about it?  Or do you have another suggestion?
> I don't think the idea of going back and fixing the DMARC-PSL separation
> issue first is tenable given how long it will take, compared to the urgent
> need to get some data here.
> -MSK