IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dmarc-ietf] A tweak to draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 29 February 2020 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 B18FB3A1152 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:06:23 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 xRv8RLnwXJzj for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92a.google.com (mail-ua1-x92a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A4B83A1151 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92a.google.com with SMTP id 94so275497uat.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:06:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CfWtgedhzvcGvF+DdwlADBacj7ZpVw5fDMy3JuvwmC8=; b=PRmNulhAcujPltMFZulJBRZCREiVn9fFQpksMEVDbuG3D0j7RFhk8tWNTx/BUsmT7g 81ZSFHVExetFM3HEPh3cRIWI8p89ZBkoDWWgEJ6bKWXM4Emkhyc9FoBoCSBFxI2pIVpE VfiogdhA72+MIwMMV/VC8GHfV78sT2TOVY6zvhsV589lNX0Y5RmgmJekJAb7DqQGIgSv UGi9u2EfbddqwY/miz1E133kn/IUA+/I4/LqFUur6+SUvuOxBUnF31vVGsxC0b7XI5vB ZvpKFBixWT7gJkMJAEzRa5ZI1JHNj9SlcdTem9nF3Uy2tAFgOTGEGLQNapIqINQMSd9I YI6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=CfWtgedhzvcGvF+DdwlADBacj7ZpVw5fDMy3JuvwmC8=; b=JjrLuuxxrGTYuRGJMahTIlrnalONJYKBd+uuqZBxhWhOOuGFjapSFxZi4DnkfM4zyQ rIB/1cGhoGl9jp/YDkkEVOTM31LzZUrApaAXyfPiiO2eyJui60vrHKg8uO5hZy6QXoUB 9J8/NVpCFVunXh9XG2iF6RxhTLz4BxO2Yj7/Wel4Xuqm3btY1tJ+mpM4l5RK1Vkyn4CI WK26IM0SxMt7ov1KU9dQ7/lL+L0RgroWtJ3DsJTs19NCgexyTjJ2Geveiy35BSQGswpG f1xzZZ6coKtgEBrdPakSBqiBkqDC/zeWV5vnJs49amWfkjSq9ooAo3wh1RPE7wIE9iUJ qkNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3WOtwYcywdNZIOU/QGlksY+xWJvrv6c9pUYW3WULmFseKL+7n+ i9VlcDJ5ICJnSNJw1UouFnZ6aFWduqyz4rtfe5GSZ0oR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtYikTZr6tA6N5Ph2m9GSGjB2jruN6M55H/EwWgZ6Syh5CdKvw+kaz7UxGI3Xg9n73smvYyxX5Mm6vQ6WqIEUo=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:432:: with SMTP id 47mr3421695uav.67.1583003181429; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:06:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:06:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaU4-74Lq5vYTBMhkj60i+zAbY6JQdOdTVyUoY=pd+QvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004eb9ea059fbba69d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/AUFDWJhCY_yvhw5Ytssi4R02aRs>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] A tweak to draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:06:24 -0000

It occurs to me on review that this draft refers to Organizational Domain,
and probably some other terms, without defining them or expressly importing
them from RFC7489.  In particular Section 2.3 refers to the OD with no
prior definition.

Maybe: Insert a new Section 2.2 (pushing others down) that explicitly
refers to RFC7489 Section 3.2, or more generally points out that this
document uses terms defined in that one.

This doesn't have to be done now; Scott, you can wait until IETF LC has
ended if you like, unless you have other nits pending to be posted.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email