Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-11.txt

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:28 PM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri 19/Mar/2021 15:09:31 +0100 internet-drafts wrote:
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > [...]
>
>
> Much better!
>
> There's still a few style points that I'd propose.  They can be dealt with
> in
> auth48.
>
>
> *Introduction*
>
> The PSL is not mentioned yet.  Therefore:
>
> OLD:
>     This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL
>     algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
>
> NEW
>     This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC specification
>     in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
>
>
Updated

>
> *Example*
>
> Since the algorithm (last word) hasn't been mentioned yet:
>
> OLD
>     Defensively registering all variants of "tax" is obviously not a
>     scalable strategy.  The intent of this specification, therefore, is
>     to enhance the DMARC algorithm by enabling an agent receiving such a
>     message to be able to determine that a relevant policy is present at
>     "gov.example", which is precluded by the current DMARC algorithm.
>
>
> NEW
>     Defensively registering all variants of "tax" is obviously not a
>     scalable strategy.  The intent of this specification, therefore, is
>     to enhance DMARC discovering method by enabling an agent receiving
> such a
>     message to be able to determine that a relevant policy is present at
>     "gov.example", which is precluded by the current DMARC specification.
>

Added Kurt's suggestion and put in a "the". Now reads as

Defensively registering all variants of "tax" is obviously not a scalable
strategy.  The intent of this specification, therefore, is to enhance the
DMARC discovery method by enabling an agent receiving such a
message to be able to determine that a relevant policy is present at
"gov.example", which is precluded by the current DMARC specification.




>
> *Discussion* (optional)
>
> The phrase "of the tree" is useless and can be deleted.  That way, the
> first
> appearance of the term "tree" is deferred to Section 2.2, where it is put
> forth
> cleverly, by implicitly recalling that the term refers to graph theory,
> since
> the root is near to the top.
>
> OLD
>     o  Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively
>        Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489].  They control
>        all subdomains of the tree.  These are effectively private
>        domains, but listed in the Public Suffix List.  They are treated
>        as Public for DMARC purposes.  They require the same protections
>        as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently unable to
>        benefit from DMARC.
>
>
> NEW
>     o  Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively
>        Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489].  They control
>        all subdomains.  These are effectively private
>        domains, but listed in the Public Suffix List.  They are treated
>        as Public for DMARC purposes.  They require the same protections
>        as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently unable to
>        benefit from DMARC.
>
Hmm, "Public Suffix List" is in this paragraph.  Needs rethinking.


> *DMARC PSD PSL Extension*
>
> Here comes the first appearance of the string "PSL:
>
> OLD
>     [psddmarc.org] provides a PSL like file to enable to facilitate
>     identification of PSD DMARC participants.  Contents are functionally
>     identical to the IANA like registry, but presented in a different
>     format.
>
> NEW
>     [psddmarc.org] provides a file formatted like the public suffix list
>     (PSL) in order to facilitate the identification of PSD DMARC
> participants.
>     Contents are functionally identical to the identical to the IANA like
>     registry above, but presented in a different format.
>
>