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
--