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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 23:36 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 0517C1200B7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:36:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] 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 ND_suY31clIW for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (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 4361E12007C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id p14so171441vsq.6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:36:37 -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=lCl4Ycg7TDLavVWe5SpyP3YDqnO6bjk0+422G3gsD8E=; b=QW7nWkHx/EQ0U6FvCIIG4q6ZlqOz6bIo781TlptzE1Q3rTFoB6DNoTQM2YeTKdEo1m 1DcXXB6zz+a1WvFeqCq4om9rLWzOlaFkJeaiylYF7+9xTTMDRUu67i6P7ioKTkXrNAyP sIJr642HCDxUo+xYCi5HXMjA8K1h+NG49TYlqxmLBjSxbuCCpZUD3XPTMGy/RY262z35 a4GYoeNbmiuRPkhH4bxtNSWYzropZOzdjfu0T2m2FBOtjFIr2GKMCpH8XjDQYPGcYoV8 wt38KnYtJmJh+mMhyXnqxfCdUavaOPAycE/Cle1v5Gc4VM/n4HJv6qHX8tE9YUzLpbsQ 9Nyw==
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=lCl4Ycg7TDLavVWe5SpyP3YDqnO6bjk0+422G3gsD8E=; b=FQiVF/MKApdA088QmqDPHSzT12PPoHMAzov9o26vO5u58j9RpPvc8qHYdWgnJ6nDBd 86lQUIw+gcdSlwycDUNBTWKRnnfQR8B/xV73b1ocPZ9Tizbc2IAlqdV2JpK2NyXvw5dX 3Wq51qqxtap5vmAzSQW9mkfnWkYW1yQVlzBwYcViuHq/wlehZTX2NWIVxuqNuiawjFVC 7bG6n82/ObwMswVLDe3efKi989kr1GYq0JkRDocvl5zZcbfKzh2VYJD7IcQKU6NmCBE5 57L9VkFNDWkXaEs62mfmdwHQRPbPAdm1L0boL2zpyOdckA//QxpczEGtbGlniUtgFBwT 3hwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUJ4ULKkPWYKrwvFcRrltvbN7M3pJ/ma1z9ON5j2FLORzxkc39i AlHrXBh4IDojHpOGTJUSvep/rN0jZqMR/dJ+ktE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz8hSG5RFYu9fdPbXdBDnoVwltgymIVjRUF8fMCG/MPKh9/+MhC2jrWA5TBxOoOnEaImIG1DXfxBkuCif6FZjY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3235:: with SMTP id x21mr18994117vsf.8.1580859396314; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:36:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580> <CAJ4XoYdgHD7O8wzv1J-=qC_M7-r32Z_UxHakTZWbMFOAU5OSjA@mail.gmail.com> <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580> <CAL0qLwb-9OMzp=JAfDKsALEFY0T8zEWg9LOnfQSPNaJcpfL8rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:36:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYn_=751b---rqFmiPa9RcdAPBtCEowH1AO1=bN8UEuNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c1db2e059dc882b7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/EBeU-m2WiTG78SntTrJvVBOdqns>
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 23:36:39 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:44 PM Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:26 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
>> appropriate and pragmatic, and in fact probably easy enough: DMARC is
>> changed so that it says the organizational domain is determined using some
>> process [currently] external to DMARC, and then a second document explains
>> how that process is accomplished using the PSL (and/or PSD, depending on
>> when the experiment result comes in).  That's a fairly simple edit overall,
>> and is actually probably minor and non-controversial compared to some of
>> the other surgery that I believe is in the queue.
>>
>>
> This would go a long way to alleviating my concerns.
>

The question to you, then, is: Is it the case that this MUST be done
*first*?

-MSK