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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Wed, 04 December 2019 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3711200FF for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IKg3ODf1AycL for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67DC41200FE for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x123so4239348vsc.2 for <>; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 23:42:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ehJFUnvpOQVktoUWcdlmuFEUaIR0ALvM8fnPbUIMu/w=; b=BsF3tCGAcc7QA/XvYtrn7UJ7BoRQQniGs8w64k2BvPZiGxwgSSHvoWgO46BKv43tO2 2ISseorhg723dPmCdd2RraCvOfo1TDajiMUo+YtRwn9xgWE0mV0jjplq1BixoYXjQIj6 wBvIp6rHNRcRWZ/c6yZ5TvD3G0w2fqAuag7zbY8msqoBi20MU578fkJZKVEKvcqJI2ys WHSGNyW8+cpK7XQcM8oZoXImhkcLOOMvuP/pSvvb+IB10Gv0Aa3XJCzAo6r6T6UTESfL V/VHKUE7cAmnV4Z9X11RDJ8DjUiOiDayM8kwCDvDxZoGAdVWFtNCvauXtIU+rL4tZBS+ uDzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ehJFUnvpOQVktoUWcdlmuFEUaIR0ALvM8fnPbUIMu/w=; b=q64Utg8ut2CUumqsuIh1qlGgi5729CQDmf7eZNIOnkxPaI9yQk0HQL1NU2kGiND/a1 RLJjbebAHSytcTz3G4ughBsA1bmra0wXbktiVEsS999r+hTOCuw37tYvo7BHAnIA8M3M Kyvi5p5VVaziIoK0c3ZdE6hnJeyWLe/okJy8KjfM1Zj13Q7o/Qg+tNrB5Ir4l4LHZkEY hCMSGjX1rpQvXsUc0lQWRXibPQWsiydcrAStx+CgYG19k84TBt9MJVy8lUI0QhNzJopY dNecqXJnHYpBzunQe35/AywzekGY/CJ/fKO2vPBHo1AJ+hQ2Xf42YXV7moNdQfRIm7UF ZUoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXCQlxjhLmtNIvUMDZSryuYoqftajZ1xmgX0SwCB46bQzpljK/n UGLChSVvN+dYthWSrfe0rW28ZdDWJa7Q38AKl4E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzVKXZyq5xb3eD3v8/sB/FKt3iFcU99AEpPUTBuk5wZ6NXwm3+uaNAdtcLeYxI5V3DNxHsmzjY7Ey9C+AiyMhI=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ce86:: with SMTP id c6mr777184vse.7.1575445349457; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 23:42:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:09 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Dave Crocker <>
Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <>, Tim Wicinski <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006ae4b50598dbf41f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:42:32 -0000

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <> wrote:

> * add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is
> an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the revision
> of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form of
> anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the
> experiment's participants;
> Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience
> and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly
> naive view.
I don't think it's based entirely on naivety.  I think there's a healthy
dose of feeling that the experiment as it's currently designed couldn't
possibly scale to "the entire domain namespace" and/or "all servers on the
Internet", so in that sense from where I sit there's a built in safeguard
against this becoming a permanent wart.  Rather, it's primed as a possibly
useful data collection exercise.

Comparing it to the "obs" grammars of days of yore, the PSD proposal is
much too expensive to become engrained as-is, whereas the old grammars were
relatively easy to carry forward.

> Perhaps there are exampls of IETF experiments that have permitted entirely
> starting over, but mostly those only happen when there is a complete
> failure, and those typically are called experiments.
ATPS (RFC 6541) was Experimental, and it flatly failed.  For a more visible
example, Sender ID was Experimental, and I would argue it did too.  Should
they not have been?