Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 29 January 2021 18:12 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 309113A11E5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:12:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 uT19_d3CI5eU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 953283A11E4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:12:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611943917; bh=hnX2H2b8+IWnsB11AS76E8wNpZuSgH7Dc+vQ2+k7Vzs=; l=12861; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Bf4zq6am3yFDoUTtrM3YQzYJKWaP5RgTR/fvX8iIj5zFs2ajq+XdoUT7UxJnzHhHg dFb0vhhJcJB66uRTw10CwIcuUIEwOhnr2yeD4yDPr/rqugUmBuFEe4YiWxJiRN4Wcu sBwe1sCKmReJQOLmoQ7uiLvpqCDX2JpD07jpG2gno0EUyAmBxGK2kUHrZr3Ws
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.0000000060144FED.00006DE4; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:11:57 +0100
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com> <87ima4wu3s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL0qLwbiOrgsEjZU_V6W8e42SRNoUh7CzyngRMR5RLeQpzrxaQ@mail.gmail.com> <44eec884-a3c7-f0e3-4545-1032369ad3fd@tana.it> <CAL0qLwavpE9r6+O+Dm5EyDYzP9_pTpTbbjMzL1mPTyJky5CKmA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Hn5G_WSHjrD3gLL5HwZxDGoV_wxgAuiPc_sutQ4OYhNg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1oxkNUB_E8Q5do5xCruxXGvqY2461u0ZMZ1J5BFE8dTqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwb9RUBTTfwNNLn+do1iNE-A1Ke-NcW+SidqhJqd3BdPig@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1qLPkVQFDxUKXsgzqoK4Qcd7Rn5Q4bOed_4WkVv-FuB7w@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+FejAGbv8TLrGXpV_Crgi1KErKK_1-6=2jzZh+QbguK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYrXEaOVphUjAB1guQO=s+ppabP1q4Ne16rqF=e6JsqLw@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Fx-jVGGgzf6-R6n1OzpwQR3akFJeVNqmq=XN_X=1B-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1qj0Q5M9bbeUvxRb2ubSKZea+sPd-2Jv+8uYf2VaVfwhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <f2fb34d7-a133-ad2d-aaab-444e162f6878@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 19:11:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_north-28132-1611943917-0001-2"
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qj0Q5M9bbeUvxRb2ubSKZea+sPd-2Jv+8uYf2VaVfwhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Gk-Q4wYBqDS4ud-1YqDhgGPgHgk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:12:04 -0000

On Fri 29/Jan/2021 17:21:19 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:52 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I suggest adding it to this paragraph:
>>
>>>    This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL
>>>    algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
>>
> 
> update to DMARC = yes; update to PSL = no


It is difficult to propose changes in OLD:/NEW: format.  I attach a patch.  It 
defers mentioning a PSL until Section 3.  That way it may address part of 
Dave's objections as well.


>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:44 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:01 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since this is an experiment, Appendix A discusses the updates that
>>>> happen.  we don't actually say explicitly "if the experiment is a success,
>>>> the following changes will be made" and perhaps I should add some wording
>>>> like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Something like this, perhaps?
>>>
>>> "A standards track update to [RFC7489] will take into account the results
>>> of this experiment."
>>>
>>> ... somewhere in Section 1.
>>>
>>
> A normative dependency from an experimental spec imposed upon a standards
> track spec seems like a bad idea to me. At the very least it would impose a
> timing constraint that DMARCbis could not be "completed" until after the
> PSD experiment is "completed", analyzed and consensus achieved.


This could be weakened by saying "*may* take into account".  However, it's not 
needed, as the sentence doesn't say *the next* standards track update...


Best
Ale
--