IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 12 July 2022 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 613F8C14CF0E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 05:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.118 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b=lA2YKRhi; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=B4l4+1vh
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MXeCl-MFzlEn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 05:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 837DAC14F606 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 05:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1657627349; bh=8+wrTsCGte2C6xsBm4rWHIe2QxhhTsZWuQyV4DAeY2k=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=lA2YKRhi0jPeccgjNY06Ww4Gs85PLsWqwUggyH6djUlsq/o/YW35LDvZZyAdvZ6/d wWzHWiPOkha0f4I9gI7Bg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1657627349; bh=8+wrTsCGte2C6xsBm4rWHIe2QxhhTsZWuQyV4DAeY2k=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=B4l4+1vhJOd4HE2Tn+BNB9HPbatqSr/MHRYL2SR345Y8Uk1/Q8atSr9MM9/EALux3 MI6YIX+QEcfoqiC0hrWo8Zj7PgF93itkfdLN9x7BDR6IHajPa+kltZAq+JloPrNGM8 Md4nAItsH2Pw98AS0iCEAojVPetvIgIOMWfGc9gorRgZTT4w5w+vcbnzRuEQo
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [192.168.1.108] (host-82-56-132-47.retail.telecomitalia.it [82.56.132.47]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC083.0000000062CD62D4.000030B8; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 14:02:28 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B10IP7rUTA8eubp4GDhFRC0H"
Message-ID: <650cadee-db8f-a54a-4d14-082c2d0bed02@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 14:02:26 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20220710010547.DB3B04532F40@ary.qy> <d8716435-8a52-dac4-ede2-6c27fced7f0f@tana.it> <84DDA91C-26E2-4803-8C6C-0369ED67298F@kitterman.com> <c4a7fd03-eae8-497f-3133-73523a9c1ca2@tana.it> <5197ba5f-9de4-d838-1579-eae67683e2d4@taugh.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <5197ba5f-9de4-d838-1579-eae67683e2d4@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FxpEkgKdg-50W8dO3xG3WM3tLI4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] what to document about the tree walk
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 12 Jul 2022 12:02:43 -0000

On Mon 11/Jul/2022 21:54:25 +0200 John Levine wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> We are proposing an alternative to the PSL without having any 
>> experience of it.  I think a Proposed Standard should give full 
>> explanations of design choices, so that possible, future amendments 
>> can be thoughtful and considered.
> 
> Could you explain, preferably in detail, why Appendix A.6 in the draft 
> doesn't do that?


A.6 seems to be dealing with a different subject.  I can still sketch 
some text to be added there, though.  I attach the diff.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email