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

Alessandro Vesely <> Tue, 23 February 2021 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E033A2AAF for <>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:37:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VCCpyn0mZiM4 for <>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBF863A2AAE for <>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 04:37:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC050.000000006034F703.0000568B; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:37:23 +0100
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt
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, 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 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/.