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

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Scott

Instead of thinking one must choose between a locally consumed registry and
a lookup service, why not both?
In the land of DNSOP we put out RFC7706 which talks about running a copy of
the root Nameservers locally to
speed lookups.  This seems to be so highly useful that we're just finished
WGLC on 7706-bis.

So we could decide on doing a combinatory of #3 and #1, with the right
mechanisms.

Just a thought.

Tim
(lacking any hats today)


On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 3:11 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 8:04:00 PM EST Brandon Long wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:39 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >> > Rather, it's primed as a possibly useful data collection exercise.
> > >>
> > >> Kurt also talked about reporting some findings.  I'm embarrassed, I
> have
> > >> no
> > >> idea what I, as a receiver, should report.  What data should I, and
> other
> > >> receivers collect?
> > >
> > > I was thinking of something along the line of what was assembled for
> RFC
> > > 6686. In this case it would be something like the quantity of messages
> > > which were assessed against the LPSD record and their disposition
> compared
> > > to the number of messages dispositioned at the org level. Something to
> > > answer Dave's concern about "too much additional work" for not enough
> > > benefit.
> >
> > Remind me again the the additional work is that might be too much?  Isn't
> > it just another DNS lookup for the org domain -1... of which there are
> > maybe a couple thousand and easily cacheable?
> >
> > This seems way less than say the additional work for ARC.
>
> It's slightly more.  There's also a check to see if a LPSD (org -1) is a
> PSD
> DMARC participant.  Exactly how to document that is the major unresolved
> question that we should evaluate experimentally.  It might be one of three
> things:
>
> 1.  A registry that is occasionally updated and consumed locally.
> 2.  A DNS RBL type service lookup.
> 3.  An exended PSL.
>
> Options 2 and 3 both have a second additional lookup.  Personally, I like
> option 1, but there's no consensus about this.  There are working versions
> of
> all three available from psddmarc.org for testing.
>
> Scott K
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>