Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 E70BE120144 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:44:17 -0800 (PST)
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 B4BxU3a7hN7Z for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:44:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (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 21B6E1200F5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:44:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id z9so12809885wrs.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:44:16 -0800 (PST)
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 :cc; bh=cIFMYJz9Lt0Ffn64cZdVvN3cyb/zpfHP3cDF9spMMnA=; b=eQ9CEvfuShU5H+CAKjztQo5yoAT0h2Pz+BOlWYWTdPKmSJG8q8Gokbg9RSFkDx/QoY IovfLBxz1tZiUUHUa21+Q80bYSQznt44+c4jwUqen7E0o/B3iZ56sKKXnaCtbLrCqevI VAVGmr6igS7acGwG1YFwKlVIzqs+I8uKyLt7Syo8JdzK/shrx9Y8agWwELv4eDm6WTf8 hZIr/k3PJ49kD06vVNJJ1QwYjpZ3JbHhQcktxik+yi6Lhf9JY074A37rapmQivE6yDYL zzJGgxD99s8K+HkmJIH8mQkEGgIcKWd9b7SYNdpifibZC8gD1gBTqcJA+tAr/WqNLI12 3U5A==
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:cc; bh=cIFMYJz9Lt0Ffn64cZdVvN3cyb/zpfHP3cDF9spMMnA=; b=oUcDSiDKu7rqY1hS+0UbTVF7D1FmNzDe+DIL6VZ1I9YxR9dgOIU/Az41+OBV/zA9Dv TPRs17/CbQ/m5y/HwqUwSCxJFW+FPL/GgHWvdBBvxxUFq6iswmYPeC8c3jIrvM91Qlpn jN5nmr1fJatnjjLOAbjWe9xCWRBLukdfUMZKF3pDeF4CMXhfTRZDvlkmKrIKXGzfqn8Q wLHZ6s4KjTqTf6N5jlqZmeNhNoG7TVTx2M3/rz4+oMNudNMQyzx2vuH1Xf1WKQtGRRSC rH1PJzQ4Mb4gn5Xt9f4DPnp4RSk4NJAJh6ZpTYbdUae44ETkF0DO8LWVCWXrM69DciZC SkgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWFz3LO4W29O8NHjADQHIyD5vzuyvCECMyaoXI1Kq9q0nqPcDSU hvI/IvDCdDw2TfO3FP0+Sh7cYQBGhQ1ZXkzkUkc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxm5jrcxu1sSyObw0GTakqeiKzu8+zr7Pz67fwqmlSwESMmSnvZ1Pk4Y0nYAf24Wx1xG1HgaOkcxWjJgIa3o/0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:66cc:: with SMTP id k12mr23505284wrw.72.1580852654796; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:44:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580> <CAJ4XoYdgHD7O8wzv1J-=qC_M7-r32Z_UxHakTZWbMFOAU5OSjA@mail.gmail.com> <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580> <CAL0qLwb-9OMzp=JAfDKsALEFY0T8zEWg9LOnfQSPNaJcpfL8rw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwb-9OMzp=JAfDKsALEFY0T8zEWg9LOnfQSPNaJcpfL8rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:43:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee777a059dc6f008"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/JdPZaytDU3rSHcIVr5YfrRqOCik>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on 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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 21:44:18 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:26 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> <snippage>
>
> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
> appropriate and pragmatic, and in fact probably easy enough: DMARC is
> changed so that it says the organizational domain is determined using some
> process [currently] external to DMARC, and then a second document explains
> how that process is accomplished using the PSL (and/or PSD, depending on
> when the experiment result comes in).  That's a fairly simple edit overall,
> and is actually probably minor and non-controversial compared to some of
> the other surgery that I believe is in the queue.
>
>
This would go a long way to alleviating my concerns.

Michael Hammer


> Seth, our illustrious WG secretary, has been compiling that list, and
> perhaps can give us some idea where it stands?
>
> -MSK
>
>