Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 11 July 2019 10:07 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 6245712037F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 03:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 S1NlnEv7Bcl5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 03:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7518B1203F5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 03:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1562839673; bh=0NNY0IvquUeQRHZ6dcdLI3e+VU2rHqgdQ5Gj0fcX+KA=; l=1767; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BrxHxaUCCHvL8dOyBqcPmE5s3MY6dc4AXam5k6rAyVCjQ0PD18aADYx+lIPwHfwsE 0QUH5AM1GF6mQCmN8rerVx3c5ChXxv6hMbGxc/qYzQf8HNsejhYgiJf7wbx/plpdKs 40Tg69uMTlXyZuYfvFMT6X9zD4WXlOLqUZ5Cs22LogzuE7coZlQj+XB++2azb
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([5.170.8.138]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1.2, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.000000005D270A78.00007C2E; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:07:52 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfN0+nxpN1P_nk3y5f8MTQ=c7DYNvYic2iDMuCK_bNa=qg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfM9BPLz6UR1bLTrE30dsWLv3k=UNNbGDGCrAfT7Op7FGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <54eac0ab-985e-69be-5985-8a53c51c7580@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:07:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfM9BPLz6UR1bLTrE30dsWLv3k=UNNbGDGCrAfT7Op7FGg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HrtrH4kC2oCU9k8MGU1-el9-fns>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:08:04 -0000

On Wed 10/Jul/2019 22:21:08 +0200 Seth Blank wrote:> There is one week
left before WGLC closes, and the below three items
> still need resolution. Please speak up!
> 
> -- Seth, as Secretary
> 
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:21 PM Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com
> <mailto:seth@valimail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     As Secretary, there are three items that have not yet reached
>     consensus that must be resolved during WGLC:
> 
>     1. What further context is needed in the introduction


IMHO, it is clear as is.


>     2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to
>     implement are needed


Appendix B.1 lacks a criterion to establish enlisting.  Couldn't we
require an explicit statement about seizing DMARC reports in, say, the
delegation report?  Alternatively, that policy can be stated in a
well-known place under the delegation services URL, so that
registrants know what they do.


>     3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only NXDOMAINs


Yes, it would allow p=reject; sp=none; (np=reject by default).



Some nits:



   (In the intro)  controls to mitigate
   potential privacy considerations associated with this extension

Don't mitigate considerations.  Mitigate risk, danger, whatever.



2.2.  Public Suffix Domain (PSD)

That paragraph sounds a bit confused.  The concepts of "private" vs.
"public" are not clear after having defined branded PSDs.  Perhaps it
is better to distinguish between single, central admin vs.
multi-organization, distributed responsibility.



The terms of Expert Review,per [RFC5226] (Appendix B.2) refer to a
IANA registry.  So, shouldn't the term "IANA" be stated in the title?
 (And a link to this appendix from the last bullet in Appendix A?)



jm2c
Ale
--