Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 29 January 2021 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF343A10E5 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:51:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 LyTxWrVlyGmv for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 880363A0D86 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f6so8977344ots.9 for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:51:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=gJxM51rXmWh3bCqiDWVjHPstmOskcehV9dHtQpsHQbI=; b=NTMyVPWeqvX1OcyIHB8D3vKr3QU4yYSfO5CwN7e2rGQXMkBC3g+PHp5EWkOuo+LP14 poEk1aqq9fJAaIAnqSSRvb56dOtkg+4f949O69Uiycy7h/1x2je3x5QnPD0YEahBi0Ct rMgTEzRdpGBjvf22IM0XfQNR7b7VeA7t47qxWsfvHX9Ww/W2gDE+BwJk98Ox2OgcUOO2 lS9LWtGyE4vPNCBUIFikJ+V6Sy8Bx5xIeMgNubv6ouPyElK+8KtvB6BqrFF/gqPwryg3 zELkpkU2mcDfPdRLgGvTOdVHmYzADCtynNEsq6hXafuIMrqPDP3nJZ1RcWs71qoISlP8 kWVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=gJxM51rXmWh3bCqiDWVjHPstmOskcehV9dHtQpsHQbI=; b=ug/jGjqZ24C9aGNSs+ZJE0Tde2zGwn+9+2dOl8/5+6Z85ciU9UTBuXuQgQsXrLSMg2 MaEhGE10MGNomnzoYUVUjywLqhto8tAdJ/9r/g+HPmWpy4Q5vuQA9HG3wvDz8wn/lr2J U76mHLc0af8YS2ioo+XaOaRP7F/qDBD3wRtMdt2SPkHpeZv4J9KBfhZKmqqb/w6pjjHn xW2t6KgW/6QhHAht7dgrRRSnm2RpdOHz2Och10mTI1CFzRb+z5sE3a3514p7599lDvrX ubHqC52OukxEH/PlauZwR22/SMnU3Nl7h9NpKgvWk8x1eyyFT7Mz7cNHPZN9jKMi4RIU 8l9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530IJxWEswrxBMVEkz7KQB9s1F9+NfmqDS1pLfjG4lYEyPLGxN0O 6KQEvwLxs93q6GQPh1UznpzvfFqC50w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxH2Tk31BC79S+vMvyqNjFIaOdt/9R9QRiS+Yl2vYoskThoyJW2jUCjYzFBxDgsgi6WtPes8g==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2313:: with SMTP id u19mr3346428ote.321.1611935472513; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:51:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id q20sm2177756otf.2.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:51:11 -0800 (PST)
To: Tim Wicinski <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
References: <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:51:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------56A4D3C23C39B7803912D6FE"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:51:15 -0000

On 1/29/2021 6:59 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> This starts a *one week* Working Group Last Call. 

Sorry, but even the Abstract appears to be littered with problematic 

I always try to provide alternate language, when I can, but in spite of 
having offered suggestions for this document in the past, I can't for 
this set.

> Abstract
>     DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and
>     Conformance) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating
>     organization can express domain-level policies and preferences for
>     message validation, disposition, and reporting, that a mail-receiving
>     organization can use to improve mail handling.  The design of DMARC
>     presumes that domain names represent either nodes in the tree below
>     which registrations occur, or nodes where registrations have
DMARC does not have 'registrations'.

Also the occur/occured contrast has no obvious meaning to me. Really, I 
have no idea what's intended by it.

>     occurred; it does not permit a domain name to have both of these
"both" of what?  registration?

>     properties simultaneously.  Since its deployment in 2015, use of
>     DMARC has shown a clear need for the ability to express policy for
>     these domains as well.
Which domains?

>     Domains at which registrations can occur are referred to as Public
>     Suffix Domains (PSDs).  This document describes an extension to DMARC
>     to enable DMARC functionality for PSDs.
This is the definition of public suffix provided by the PSL folk:

"A public suffix is a set of DNS names or wildcards concatenated with 
dots. It represents the part of a domain name which is *not* under the 
control of the individual registrant."

>     This document also seeks to address implementations that consider a
>     domain on a public Suffix list to be ineligible for DMARC
>     enforcement.

implementations don't 'consider' anything.

is 'ineligibility' really the essential issue?



Dave Crocker

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross