Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 08 July 2022 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 7E3FBC1594AF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 S8vGZUZvmRxM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com (mail-ej1-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0812AC14CF16 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id o25so39130316ejm.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=woq3dfgO2anWMLw33OFwkFAfjCLOSXMhCVJUy7txI54=; b=GACxD7Vo4WyQNN6xdhUE7ACTpvosJzBIPWbl5Jgzk+Ah0bzMgIJwLCEx3REE1DrzXp nFZd/dl7QVJs6RLSoNOCT078nLxFQS/U/7ppyJbkjXbOz+UwMxiGtUIia2P63aWh1E67 I0Gf4nS/56sWoYnsGs4xQzd8I50GLnPli/xvj25BnJHfh+J0gGoFenigwDKM3EiCmboc YErj6oICfZj835QHdEWQy4rpR+LwvO0ZCCbZZGjkQT2QIww4cTv8b9hyrp4KwFEGN4lf pFQZsbQZrUZjEHN5PP97cbALmu0QZhAuJzoel1yljs26UrezOrogYtj7fnYgb97Ko3Tr qFhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/+XZ+y4p3vo17ScH7bLnzGO7aeKmusQ3puMt0Zt2WdxmY1cyUZ PdSL/5kwXYzrlqU+svOlOBkmF8j641Qyk0343VM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vjcMKtScQ2yoRsZnh37EEToJ4KyKZrT8i5pugeWSVFyDlrvPhG1k1bPuOkhQMupale7cmrNzJBl8sS4E5w7jY=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c94:b0:726:307c:8be7 with SMTP id nb20-20020a1709071c9400b00726307c8be7mr5022660ejc.443.1657306212220; Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b87b71c5-c4bc-b963-06eb-dd94cca1340d@tana.it> <20220707203257.0602A45178AF@ary.qy> <CAH48Zfwvbkeq8CzXeb959Ehv-Gc9KxBc-Q5Op25oU1GGNF=NQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYNVZSBYnBWx7ASHGO00_FrUB1NW=vrNHji+K3F0NrOPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYNVZSBYnBWx7ASHGO00_FrUB1NW=vrNHji+K3F0NrOPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 14:50:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKNvatCE25T0ZAJ8eZqxNHxgW2q1N9qDoWfZqmaC+rjcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/G3MWk8B3S8yZ9N5mkAY__agVUaA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 18:50:14 -0000

>> So John has confirmed that it is his intent to hide any information about private registries, because the
>> private registries create complexity for his algorithm which he does not wish exposed.
>
> I submit that equating "this is not worth explaining as it's a corner case" to "we should hide this detail
> because I don't want anyone to know about it" is logically absurd as well as baldly antagonistic.

Agreed, and thanks, Murray.

Doug, I've called out others for similar things, and you get it here:
Please do not attribute bad intent to other participants, and please
do not put things in terms of accusations or in ways that seem only to
pour tar.

A response such as, "John, I strongly disagree: I think it's really
important to talk about at least some uncommon cases in order to make
the situation clear.  Discussing private registries in one of those
important cases, as they create complexities for the algorithm that
need to be shown," gives your technical opinion without being
insulting or inflammatory.

Barry