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

Alessandro Vesely <> Thu, 11 July 2019 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6245712037F for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 03:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S1NlnEv7Bcl5 for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 03:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7518B1203F5 for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 03:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] ([]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1.2, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.000000005D270A78.00007C2E; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:07:52 +0200
References: <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <
> <>> 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?)