Re: [dmarc-ietf] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On the process questions raised:

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:06 AM Qin Wu via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Minor issue:
> This document provide two registries, one is update of DMARC Tag Registry
> with
> one new element, requested from IANA, the other is DMARC PSD registry
> maintained by [psddmarc.org] and following IANA registry style, I see one
> is
> standard registry, the other is non-standard registry, it is not clear to
> me
> non-standard registry should be discussed in this document, which introduce
> confusion, if we keep both, I am wondering why section 6 still requests to
> add
> an element to standard registry, which functionality we add is
> experimental,
> which functionality is not.
>

It's helpful here, I think, that the IANA Considerations section includes
the IANA stuff, and an Appendix contains the other stuff.  I don't think
this is particularly confusing; the two are well-separated.

Second related question, this draft updates informational RFC7489 with
> additional components and rules, should the front page of this
> Experimental RFC
> reflect this or not? Nits: Section 1 Somewhere subdommains is used,
> somewhere
> sub-dommains is used, please be consistent. Section 3.5 said:
> "Specifically,
> this is
>    not a mechanism to provide feedback addresses (RUA/RUF) when an
>    Organizational Domain has declined to do so.
> "
> Should a reference be added to RUA/RUF, RUA/RUF needs to be expanded or add
> abbreviation section in the terminology section.
>

This is an experiment to see if RFC7489 should be augmented, i.e., is the
experiment described here useful to DMARC?  If it turns out it is not, then
saying this updated the base specification wouldn't be such a good thing.
If it turns out that it is, then the DMARCbis work (which is about to start
up) will incorporate the experiment such that it becomes permanent.

Section 3.2
>  OLD TEXT:
> "
> If the 'np' tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the
> 'sp'
> tag is present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag, if the 'sp' tag is
> not
> present, MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. " NEW TEXT: " If the
> 'np'
> tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the 'sp' tag is
> present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag( if the 'sp' tag is not
> present
> and ‘p’tag is present), MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. "
> Section
> 3.2 Change section 3.2 title from "3.2.  Section 6.3 General Record
> Format" To
> 3.2.  Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format" Similar changes can be
> applicable to other places.
>

I'll leave this bit to the authors and co-chairs to resolve.

-MSK