Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 08 November 2018 08:53 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 68479130E6D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:53:44 -0800 (PST)
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 aBDehFnPsaTm for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:53:42 -0800 (PST)
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 0EE15130DCC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:53:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=gamma; t=1541667220; bh=YhiL5X2QT/OMw0UFooDUT7p+5glLy/4UkdN6w/UY18A=; l=846; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CtV1Hz1zV4MNUE3+VsOTiEVAiz8bnp4bh+6lCI8qpnuRClux/iFo5EpXa7ZpCXxDT qeBm1LRLnl0aP0XnQWYuwz6qavh6YTUfKj9giCQ35+xLRuT4nbmqZsAQaok4bW6VXt iag0uRz9re3W+7Ejb3D9uUNQtB4XZ4MeINgUJiGOZ0PrAIx9HnJKEfSuhP/oC
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 09:53:40 +0100 id 00000000005DC033.000000005BE3F994.00002435
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <CABuGu1o4E-Svt9N++RaFvO4SATt3Wh1w7gZb1OdBSVRCm7Odmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCQmV5agORght0XWr27kDD+OkaEZcKcaDtE8wLG0Yi-YA@mail.gmail.com> <dee0fd86-40e3-e01d-6c70-2f467759be8b@tana.it> <93BFC1AD-9CC4-4CB4-89E1-A735AF5CD8E4@kitterman.com> <635dea71-2077-9a1a-e7a2-8594697e1068@tana.it> <AB35FEF5-74C9-400D-9A7F-543F9CAA215D@kitterman.com> <CABuGu1pXaXioyPTV6OXD3hWBXVjt5+kk0dqaZwbDcKaU+Y6q5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <446b8d5d-c059-a7d7-c38f-9c3a92241adf@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 09:53:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1pXaXioyPTV6OXD3hWBXVjt5+kk0dqaZwbDcKaU+Y6q5A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KcQfllODE3ogyyYB3oUVQChxyS0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items
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, 08 Nov 2018 08:53:44 -0000

On Thu 08/Nov/2018 01:23:10 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:42 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> The registry is meant to be a solution to the 'what about .com' problem
>> you mention.  It's a solution, not necessarily the best or only one.
>>
>> I'd suggest we adopt the draft/work item and then try to figure it out.
>>
> 
> +1 - this is a good problem for the WG to wrestle with;


Agreed


> and maybe it can solve the "PSL problem" if we can constrain the problem
> space to just the DMARC issues instead of recreating the
> DBOUND-solve-for-all morass.

This problem is simpler than DBOUND.  Looking up text policies is common to a
handful of protocols.  A careful wording might make some statements reusable in
general, even if the focus is kept on DMARC.


Best
Ale