Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 12 December 2018 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 BEACD131213 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=5mAoaV7l; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=TVP83nas
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 P-ZNTpGWIbOu for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE4313120C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:45:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 77881 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2018 18:45:49 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-id:user-agent; s=13037.5c11575d.k1812; bh=PyaF+Jp4UWruFXekyMwu/mEMjUGdnahvWkE0TccSWMM=; b=5mAoaV7lp16QXQcSCvTsyKjIeGqo7UtPjxaqDlDs5xAf7CmWSB8JjmMHCdDqae/Fgo0BoHUquRusQfbVcCDRNWNrWrimWMEfl87bu1inZinlnx3FCe5sW2AmhH+fMQ2HvRo/htjdg4qeqirWOWGf1nAMNQDOmf0qQTn6iLC6xB8JivW3S6QQZcrjP8oHO9dTss7IjjdqEUyiWgphc+9mhuTt5MKtvc15h538ZLTWi23qZy08EykjUPaMoMwdMZZU
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-id:user-agent; s=13037.5c11575d.k1812; bh=PyaF+Jp4UWruFXekyMwu/mEMjUGdnahvWkE0TccSWMM=; b=TVP83nasgqffEEe2zsUYXV0Cb48crzhJPL88xKX/2/+9hZDnUmqqXU8BT4gSRf6NjuXCf8IjnRFwI+1f9AX9m/Q9NN7lfjBJh5UlC854CxJf+xnn4UoVrhVzxSIMSBFlsq3hYbedtli74NrTELwIme9qvl/edtlpuuOeuNX8UHeeA97dLCY0HXKopDdimF5kJ/yWCg4ypZinPVsYXW0nYHMqUjoOG33Ix6U4rk9vQgltNQsyJCikKPe6X6dhZEGL
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 12 Dec 2018 18:45:49 -0000
Date: 12 Dec 2018 13:45:48 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1812121308360.8565@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <34f1d56b-d6c4-6fec-1a94-0355c9404c92@dcrocker.net>
References: <20181212165914.36A76200B6363D@ary.qy> <67d0e491-9e87-0219-cb94-e8e897daeff9@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1812121239060.8453@ary.qy> <34f1d56b-d6c4-6fec-1a94-0355c9404c92@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1812121344061.8654@ary.qy>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Db9Q6rigGvCFs2zlbPqiHxZ61ko>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD simplification
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, 12 Dec 2018 18:45:54 -0000

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The source of the pressure is that the cost of a queriable registry is high. 
> Very, very high.  So creating one needs to have a very compelling 
> justification.  I don't see how this one comes close.

Seems that way to me.  Even if it's distributed by DNS, perhaps under 
blah.psd.arpa, so it uses existing infrastructure, it's still significant 
work to manage.

> Besides retrieving information and passing it up to its caller, the DNS 
> client has nothing at all to do with using advice in an OD parent record. 
> Hence my confusion about your text.  So I think you meant "This is easily 
> addressed by receivers ignoring the report adivce in the OD parent record."

Yup.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly