Re: [dmarc-ietf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT)

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 15 April 2021 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 318363A34DB; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Y4kacnSeID4S; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 C9CE33A34DA; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id b10so25965833iot.4; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
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=lBfuOO1B9i705VJSpiEpMR7bTG8pTm8HnknKPl6DpI4=; b=tkouEqLTXbJHHnFIVPwXZZ0n0OfU09pnm0vEtIEtjYS1EAo/INxwUIFtXYeAGzoCH8 cSdRd+F0EmRVdgEHpiXVm0DtsZXc8+t8iMm4tt/Qt08MOhUeqvV7CH6MBsuDhRiUQqu9 z4HKmb1/meh5FWrBPHYnxcAPOg7GRX/JveEbKqQswlQw5E3GDlUNER9YGRxGW288uEaF 9GIUFuw8z1RbH4Cn1bqRJZwe+G5ltxDOq04w5p5MOwBE7kQn+5R9rD3FFmoLWQO46l3Q tJvJl3aomZZLn3rKW81lnIF9nwA2LHJzCEpj8Qb/Qs5mxR1Cvb4WKN+K/+MWo3UXL/c/ F3/g==
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=lBfuOO1B9i705VJSpiEpMR7bTG8pTm8HnknKPl6DpI4=; b=g/bYBjWvuKEVHrrXxILZJoRUT5KFyhxYXwJkNaeEjAVicHC3N8ajKBGRkTezNnpc9N V5d3f38+8b/iUEO0jKAj3CjPJjExf7nzzV6MeVNaL7IPNDlsWQZ4n8U3v55oiCTxQvgg 4qOIH1tbByAl1nVxVMFeR6HoDUumML6O/MIGymJwpExQxwolhRvrqRkMYok33/InRAm1 zt+RMq+W74+hBMm2vHJTTXPL1mpkb3tpBdzs85NEEtVx/8aoUW/BYQsavGOLxUTCuiLb rEngVsM5d4MLOrINGuSAfp8PKPiru9N5x/wvo0/5CN2TDZgsz3f5PH5JdCG30809ulnU 6TSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hLjk6kjMw0Gy4dsYDQ51MHkQHJDUInyD+JC4q5ymhX+9Xaowk iT9Vx7Hhg7wb6JUs4I9YIaXCMNHJCB0YghVIkFO8joLT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBI80suFXdgG7Z5dXDZza1yQwm0CQs3a6XqRVes19U4VO1xY3BjJcU7dw4WnV5KQGyHxR3QnKgrWsovhiiFNw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3417:: with SMTP id n23mr1268177ioz.96.1618530588478; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161847105823.12240.11886353486421150693@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <161847105823.12240.11886353486421150693@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:49:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+HRSkOMvi2N5=q-pBiXGWGtfZXW+fjN5x5LqVq6LLeKdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tl?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-psd@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c8d10005c00b843d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/N7M5bOJhwElXTky5ir27Zr4xZME>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draf?= =?utf-8?q?t-ietf-dmarc-psd-12=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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, 15 Apr 2021 23:49:55 -0000

Eric

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:17 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document. It is easy to read and
> specify
> an experiment, which could be useful.
>
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated), and some nits.
>
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> == COMMENTS ==
>
> -- Sections 1 and 3--
> I share Lars' concern about the "update" in the last paragraph.
>
> -- Section 5.1 --
> Editorial comment: why using a sub-section ? Let's 'glue' its contents to
> the
> first § of section 5. BTW, interesting read this section.
>
>
Section 5 is Security Considerations and has no subsections. Am I missing
something?

> == NITS ==
>
> -- Section 2.2 --
> Unsure whether "Requests for Comment (RFC)" is really required ;-) cfr
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
>
>
Agreed, and fixed.

> -- Sections 2.2 ... 2.7 --
> Mostly cosmetic but I would have preferred the usual presentation to
> introduce
> terminology, i.e., a list and not several sub-sections.
>
>
Maybe we can make this a note for the RFC Editor ?

tim