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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 21:20 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 D357F120152 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:20:56 -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 jJHbP0CYrMuv for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (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 422C012012E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id x123so12475464vsc.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:20:55 -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=G5G2EKAzN6zJ9RKwmqnicxAo4/rLVFG72tAEcgL023k=; b=gPIZ3ldPJwVj6493p4xMB+TeQ4ay+G08YVrDDToeqY33rILD4v6AnYOBDhV3l1ySeT vaE+iII/UMsvZokB99P1HxSF/qJ5H4GJ3MQdANRZ4eMwIdgeAIpzPSGq5NkgDF+YXEBE +K2bF80CKZgpo9QDdxxmG6/YNqlEgUyuNoPCgcxipkc0q6Fsmo4sZf6ubDfYOgO5Dwq8 wxuhXIwz+4a+wt7QlRicjumhs4sS+UAAdRsE5y1l0W3Z5eJqT0iPYCsddq+s/uXevsrH xGnc3shFpMYQpLqTQhoBrpEZZtmqkZ7FCieZtiLO4jFKGiP9x/xCbqZqzwvFHEwwA/nw Hi6A==
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=G5G2EKAzN6zJ9RKwmqnicxAo4/rLVFG72tAEcgL023k=; b=eNJw6djbvx5WEkRYPuJqw4WxMFT2aTDq0cxVi8fZ7bZEB4n9FJwqSJzLlCxdEWDNen k/cQ1KFs6TezZpyEE0AM92zOpgkCGKCHTigwViZUK0YBpLfGOa7LpqICnMtDW/K0bSwj 1La8gdAKqSfy90gpDXdaXCYGOPnqGyDrL3iV+nZR6cnKNyPFNVLdYbzIjpvsF68iXAW7 9zzPHhs/xVfsIysZew0zIWlqkRIl3dSFmkGytuN6t0Fqdzjcowyse3UNMuxMOOMZ47w2 I7O8UXBLReytb2gERSJ9EKessWryFZ2lRr8wAcXGXB3KfMiGCW6Gp0ijqOnRLdtxMWsV DnjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV2oJItqxHQqChGaEI0O8b4CyT20UOy+YkiKHgbyXwzkrPBh+ZX CZ00RiixH3iSB6qHqK4xekklgiCc3wMOwRN+IPk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw6brpIXjMBPzZ5G1/SQpAuwltCatg/X1ZbhczbzUbUFTDqSsHpSTXmsMVDVkRzPh0RrKi+omNeOKzUkVXGPoc=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ce86:: with SMTP id c6mr20752696vse.7.1580851254214; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:20:54 -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> <CAL0qLwZnomZJTbFB=dfFdw2vWg7B0ObRuoage3pcWaYmP9Kp4A@mail.gmail.com> <082f2102-693c-136d-874c-1182f12a6818@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZjd2qhejctNK0BM7j=SscaE45Mm7U9iWJNvO-GuhEKQA@mail.gmail.com> <1aa141c4-50d8-4f2e-c72f-e1d0bf19f280@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY-v-VS-Wai-aqGRPOj1i8HxqMrYybzsNJGzN2dTHvG9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYe4MKmCuFXhshzek97ABeHk1YzZCJof8EPKZSGJzJUzOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYe4MKmCuFXhshzek97ABeHk1YzZCJof8EPKZSGJzJUzOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:20:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYg=HA6Z5heze4WJyAkS=Wb6PyHusyey51Em+KYLWx3Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007343c2059dc69d6a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ez7cyBobeLnYH3g4XIiU7OcGMXw>
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 21:20:57 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:25 PM Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread starting
> from Dave's post in August, I believe his concerns are valid.
>

I want to say again that I make no assertion that any of Dave's claims are
invalid.  The main thing I want us to discuss is whether any of them rise
to the level of halting PSD's movement through the process versus finding a
way to do all of it in parallel, accepting the risks being identified.
Fixing everything first will be extremely time-consuming, but it is a
possible course of action.

My question to the chairs and the group as a whole is whether an experiment
> can be constructed that is valid and useful without "comingling" PSD issues
> and concerns with the core of DMARC at scale? That is, the group that is
> seriously interested does their experiment amongst themselves to produce
> data that supports and justifies such changes in the wild.
>

Yes, that is the question.  And the working group can still legitimately
conclude that it wants to advance this document before conducting that
experiment.  As you said, rough consensus.

I would remind everyone, however, that this document still needs to pass a
two week IETF-wide Last Call, appropriate directorate reviews, and IESG
review before it can be sent to the RFC editor queue, where again it will
wait for a while.  Assuming we have consensus to proceed in spite of what
Dave and now Mike are saying, we're still at least a month or two from
publication.  That seems a long time to wait before starting the experiment
and collecting data.  Are we sure we want to serialize everything this way?

-MSK