Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 23 February 2021 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 75E033A2AAF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:37:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 VCCpyn0mZiM4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBF863A2AAE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:37:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1614083844; bh=jKO6qU0JG8JAs/C9vplFleX3EExVl0eOc28KzslqkgY=; l=1006; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BWXbdzRBZjc2SA+TfcTBKWJJdp1jT1S3Ht+MEdWrNob7+s2MLLfwRQa2fmB+cDPeC 3rMVB/bssZXKTz4HvB9RIdDW8eZtL/6VVQDioUofpt5nIkM5Jz0+fMdjcbxGllEAwL KG5Scvs6pr3tCEMkNt4TtoUI9xeqXZAc18Q7yTdHfq6WPnpoRps233XYVRcI5
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC050.000000006034F703.0000568B; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:23 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <161144436332.13490.10651420808048876097@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADyWQ+EhD0nz71dLtUFwb9V_6uuen-k6E5fpvrCg3ZYzfr2JSw@mail.gmail.com> <ba38a9e4-7f43-c747-2d90-f35de22a8399@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZJaEBrXdE9JOZNOJAgR7iEzfMA86Csi2sNtE5JC7ROUQ@mail.gmail.com> <c5cd9239-b204-255a-48a3-1cdccf18464a@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYrcg__sewPO+EWfJf-5uoHcnQpFqtw-QoXxngHTJvkAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDCeFQU9RTN6osPTrMpap-Djkx5+Czx=-nKqVeXnyEy1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZXkRMLXS7mt28-vEKKk4HgWkP98P8kdYaS1XbcYQvSxQ@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR01MB705365834B737AF46A2DF099C7819@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <7f7dc32b-eccc-5aae-1780-a8cf07c32fac@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR01MB705365834B737AF46A2DF099C7819@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9eIlsLQv6zIMoPZOfHT4kmh8l7s>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt
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: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:37:29 -0000

On Mon 22/Feb/2021 15:36:00 +0100 Ken O'Driscoll wrote:
> I would go even further and not even talk about the trees and nodes. Also, 
> echoing elsewhere in this thread, making it really clear that this is not a 
> case of /DMARC is coming for your TLD/. So, I’d propose something super basic 
> like this for the second paragraph:
> 
>     Domain name suffixes (for example .com, .eu, and .co.uk) are controlled by 
>     registries, who either directly or through accredited registrars, facilitate 
>     the registration and management of domain names below these suffixes. DMARC 
>     currently permits expression of policy only for domain names and not for domain 
>     suffixes. Since its deployment in 2015, specialist use cases have been 
>     identified where it may be desirable for a suffix to express a DMARC policy. 
>     This document describes an experimental extension to DMARC to add that capability.


Clear and concise.  Just s/only for domain names/only for registered domain names/.


Best
Ale
--