Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-11.txt
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 19 March 2021 16:28 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 CA7193A19B8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
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 TX2QtsKwc-DF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
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 A5EFB3A19CB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1616171311; bh=rNbf6NSq8RhBgYvKY0tDc8iRA4i+vZcrO+MmLqQy7I8=; l=3104; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AEp1EIm/4tscf0yV4Hx0V41rSUGDpxIUcSszIfAwEP46Xb+l2GswdaN3fOzU3l/gb NwpJ2orwCfIJ3q5BViXvtu9slAr1CEIznIoFzC0++lTmWom6hj7P9/WwQFVbCKc7rS wE8AOb8ndQ21xwDIarKTiUXSttc2gRkMPIkJH3w2w0IBw0bRwWiYKVWo8T2ML
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 00000000005DC07E.000000006054D12F.000063AE; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:28:31 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <161616297099.26288.5532647192522385084@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <b6acffdb-9700-b078-6cd2-e76d7f677f32@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:28:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <161616297099.26288.5532647192522385084@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Jt7fhrmB2R-prss4iPR8q55-1HA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-11.txt
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, 19 Mar 2021 16:28:37 -0000
On Fri 19/Mar/2021 15:09:31 +0100 internet-drafts wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > [...] Much better! There's still a few style points that I'd propose. They can be dealt with in auth48. *Introduction* The PSL is not mentioned yet. Therefore: OLD: This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse. NEW This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC specification in an attempt to mitigate this abuse. *Example* Since the algorithm (last word) hasn't been mentioned yet: OLD Defensively registering all variants of "tax" is obviously not a scalable strategy. The intent of this specification, therefore, is to enhance the DMARC algorithm by enabling an agent receiving such a message to be able to determine that a relevant policy is present at "gov.example", which is precluded by the current DMARC algorithm. NEW Defensively registering all variants of "tax" is obviously not a scalable strategy. The intent of this specification, therefore, is to enhance DMARC discovering method by enabling an agent receiving such a message to be able to determine that a relevant policy is present at "gov.example", which is precluded by the current DMARC specification. *Discussion* (optional) The phrase "of the tree" is useless and can be deleted. That way, the first appearance of the term "tree" is deferred to Section 2.2, where it is put forth cleverly, by implicitly recalling that the term refers to graph theory, since the root is near to the top. OLD o Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489]. They control all subdomains of the tree. These are effectively private domains, but listed in the Public Suffix List. They are treated as Public for DMARC purposes. They require the same protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently unable to benefit from DMARC. NEW o Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489]. They control all subdomains. These are effectively private domains, but listed in the Public Suffix List. They are treated as Public for DMARC purposes. They require the same protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently unable to benefit from DMARC. *DMARC PSD PSL Extension* Here comes the first appearance of the string "PSL: OLD [psddmarc.org] provides a PSL like file to enable to facilitate identification of PSD DMARC participants. Contents are functionally identical to the IANA like registry, but presented in a different format. NEW [psddmarc.org] provides a file formatted like the public suffix list (PSL) in order to facilitate the identification of PSD DMARC participants. Contents are functionally identical to the identical to the IANA like registry above, but presented in a different format. Best Ale --
- [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-11.… internet-drafts
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Kurt Andersen (b)
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd… Tim Wicinski