IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-ietf-dmarc-psd review

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2019 16:42 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 EE17312032B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
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 2BnUjxqvtxix for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (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 1E10E12036B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id b17so27148877lff.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=DNLBqgNAQmhfmRVXN7/Wxt0JbdiTrXLDjJwHCFe4R2c=; b=WXq/E3SDkdh3Q3t/fNGXF9/arpXdCChSKhqaXgHxswO2LEyf7LxuPLzBo/RGO2ndpC 2eFuIklefqfA45nRTn84CzwbS7ZGtL1FDM3tX/z7D6p4GnhtJNIJ9+EKElrhVsKBjaDR rMjI9LF83QY06CCDCvLik7c/6FbhrEa7ab62BNaiv7PNuRhTDGZoGAMnxolG13U8DQ5K nIDDPfUN7DH+RDoRTF9ku/xX9yGdbShBQvTlvZHLAz0Zh5mFOU8htusqI9NQrbvuZ3TD CVUrMMPqqUiiJ/qVqpi/joymsFKduifoWaV2GOgFxDR6JOd3/d8GJePnIT6Oeg0iytYL xQQg==
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; bh=DNLBqgNAQmhfmRVXN7/Wxt0JbdiTrXLDjJwHCFe4R2c=; b=oqsi4GFLGWUSQ22fl7mWpIABEQ9KA/rUxe9vTWMWLhlPHIA39rerhy2zNO7mrxqO9G RenAfsZCgu+Q0GWCXwrbAoO8JO9s8TncQ5z8c8ITltJbCcUJ+0+yf1nHhdeimCPux38l mHKF61pWEpRWyLnKKjKm33G8zCHveSnh8oy3V3wXS+ZFCkGJauBUA+wl3CLDfKl8zcez Md/T0Pcy2cGAnlWf0K6CWxiUWjhEtFpx4b1PTI+u2Hipj9ImmMcLzizprIQ70+/BfDQJ B1ig14YRcZ79jIsLglGJqHGSDriBr+qyOeDkZV5YmrtHVIfijoqc1M/s0PTisU/9Dwos E5lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX2rHH+IoqSznDuNz2N71FZfFHzNiVyZPV5PezbBdsXyM2iRad6 2ZE9KklB0jUCSkS6LtRjsgpeatHcqDt2AkniRQFQ5fT4BW0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzoOdbZ/gM3oAUz5Zrm40RrjX647Hs23J26zXHx6ixnA+aHfDnmqO5ZMnymRhFbaOw426rNzjf0kpNLN0Mdtmc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:546a:: with SMTP id e10mr32938963lfn.75.1563813739021; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwaB7K3ro_=d9bfiLTYnAnNTKSQ3g10USmjADQAoYg4bPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaB7K3ro_=d9bfiLTYnAnNTKSQ3g10USmjADQAoYg4bPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:42:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaLBxL7WLmDGUA9o9qZ90z1f4YYEiCraMG5ERt+MOV+cQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068c9bc058e47c235"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/GBlmcs4BEi5HrHYg80Ew3wbq5DY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-ietf-dmarc-psd review
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:42:27 -0000

One (hopefully) last thing:

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:23 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 3.4.  Section 6.6.3.  Policy Discovery
>
>    A new step between step 3 and 4 is added:
>
>    3A.  If the set is now empty and the longest PSD (Section 2.3) of the
>       Organizational Domain is one that the receiver has determined is
>       acceptable for PSD DMARC, the Mail Receiver MUST query the DNS for
>       a DMARC TXT record at the DNS domain matching the longest PSD
>       (Section 2.3) in place of the RFC5322.From domain in the message
>       (if different).  A possibly empty set of records is returned.
>
> Section 6.6.3 of DMARC doesn't talk about "acceptable for DMARC", so I don't know what "acceptable for PSD DMARC" might mean.
>
> Section numbers in the prose of this section should make clear which document they're referencing.
>
>
I think an example in an appendix that shows an evaluation without PSD and
then with PSD, and then some prose about what it enables (i.e., what the
benefit is), would be extremely helpful.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email