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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 08 December 2019 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 92D3E12007C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:49:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 A4VgiaLDhork for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com (mail-ot1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) (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 AC7CC120020 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id i15so10371989oto.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 11:49:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3vrP4+tHSNVKwn0m9c5upDogxOPz4/0KStJ0Hg+D7iM=; b=ZOXKCtBDrYHxZqyhJq2iXWEVK4y9NKpPlraWZjcbDCBNYvtH8AtY0miszvmBk8e9i5 Z+OJLe9j4OxMwhbXbif5pyo5zXeW3xYwNjG9VacWtxC7oVNLVF2U2O/QNEmrtMktPbYk BAxBCjBxWSeezFm/o/bCSlSfAH5K1yA/1BPmMlHjXsvr1MBAxuVn/uuqQz5WKObKcKzP Gu0JKFs86jZgM1QPgZQgK0qD9IXmzWq7j2TwozdiOrfV3PUBaYZ3IRc/J7KUopME537s aBa5Y9BvP0iAV3JC8FXY+IfT4UfWoAW5JDxt/bxpLIDYeKRwXRT1/gfcXHO/ruTw6Uc/ D2SA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3vrP4+tHSNVKwn0m9c5upDogxOPz4/0KStJ0Hg+D7iM=; b=PnFRMVSOiLqCvGeniMBQj+e150FoA3QODCjUaKENIvVx78EehFPo6/ub6/fY2m501Q wazYMmi13dWxA8JBvHfsG4q/bLMIid/ePVuwnuBXrP8y1YAobYlASsXkWLmYOV4VkVXT 7jbU7ZfX1dX2UIU+Chyb6rrHmbt9Y3TG9L1+N3ZSRHLUIjhvVUSuOE0FBJNXEk/p5KqK dgqTL3GAYyCyc/SQbgKBBmfY9qr0S8YBY9VpX94BH4QlLrhUSjobfFIJEDnWJp4l87mZ cCmiVIF8Wrx5UImEZDN7giU6vBcdMmvEFBMllFX+Bbt8rZ+7WoE1qGiZeZmj8U3t4I0D w+kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBTVzgKRHflUzDyqm+yhPTuWywLEnJXkb8ER3TVDrBr567+6KK 4d3WZTDjp9DYs6kljHUH9dkIrcrkljlNK9ddrY8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzpmgrkqdYGa4mUTUDBBSj6H/Ek81YgD7OsHsqwOHKrUgoLCjxOHH+5QpKdjoxUeMVM07uaIuYwiC7pfWoScFY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1555:: with SMTP id l21mr15682796otp.41.1575834594885; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 11:49:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CABuGu1qy1Zx7tGzuZvsW0LwNY+se7jcmfAGYNQF+aO5Sodg+pA@mail.gmail.com> <CABa8R6v=U_0nbz3bvjU0xuWCp7BOcZ7K1ha0qpsvP1C1cLYROA@mail.gmail.com> <3901697.AhlRBlR6Pl@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <3901697.AhlRBlR6Pl@l5580>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 14:49:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+HparFd6ubzr46mo63=oSrRqu1cjo0Xq=ZpERn+Yxx3=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040c7f60599369567"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/C-U4kHeAET39L4FFKQVdIDXnPk8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on 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: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 19:49:57 -0000

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 <sklist@kitterman.com>; 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) <kboth@drkurt.com>;
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:39 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>;
> 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
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>