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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 04 December 2019 07:42 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 0A3711200FF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:32 -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 IKg3ODf1AycL for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe34.google.com (mail-vs1-xe34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e34]) (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 67DC41200FE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe34.google.com with SMTP id x123so4239348vsc.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 23:42:30 -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=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; d=1e100.net; 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: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwacbAT04tckpPcRcnOt=1QByOBeJ7uDf6rNK6NRwtxZYg@mail.gmail.com> <ffa2bf72-3024-237b-86ae-9cc04babeec6@gmail.com> <74a0ea49-7a46-4eb6-c297-cd703f63bd1b@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbp2hNrgF_xxhKRRODQ6HP=U5_K-r3Wtm1wJZOZcKup3g@mail.gmail.com> <9DE9E7DC-FE60-4952-8595-B2D087A6B780@kitterman.com> <CADyWQ+GSP0K=Ci22ouE6AvdqCDGgUAg3jZHBOg3EwCmw=QG84A@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1obn55Y2=CuEYRYCEO3TYYNhYTsdkesQ67O61jRyfO=wA@mail.gmail.com> <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:42:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZnomZJTbFB=dfFdw2vWg7B0ObRuoage3pcWaYmP9Kp4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006ae4b50598dbf41f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/DJ4m8b5A2at-r0FBkSOcX-ZXpHk>
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:42:32 -0000

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> 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?

-MSK