Re: [dmarc-ietf] The description of psd=n

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 6:04:01 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 05/03/2024 21:47, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On March 5, 2024 8:10:46 PM UTC, Todd Herr 
<todd.herr=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:30 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> 
wrote:
> >>> On March 5, 2024 2:47:47 PM UTC, Todd Herr 
<todd.herr=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 6:12 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> 
wrote:
> >>>>> Section 5.3, in the format description of psd:
> >>>>>         n:  The DMARC policy record is published for a PSD, but it is
> >>>>>         the
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>            Organizational Domain for itself and its subdomain.  There
> >>>>>            is
> >>>>>            no need to put psd=n in a DMARC record, except in the very
> >>>>>            unusual case of a parent PSD publishing a DMARC record
> >>>>>            without
> >>>>>            the requisite psd=y tag.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Perhaps a "not" is missing between "is" and "published"?  I'd
> >>>>> just say the domain is not a PSD /and/ it is the
> >>>>> Organizational Domain for itself and its subdomain. >>>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>> You may be correct in your assertion here; I'll wait for others to
> >>>> weigh
> >>> 
> >>> in.
> >>> 
> >>>> In the meantime, Issue 126 has been opened to track this.
> >>> 
> >>> I think it's missing a not, but is overwise fine.
> >> 
> >> John Levine commented directly on issue 126
> >> <https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/126>,
> >> 
> >> indicating that he believes the text should read (emphasis added by me):
> >>        n:  The DMARC policy record is published for a PSD, but it is NOT
> >>        the
> >>        
> >>           Organizational Domain for itself and its subdomain.  There is
> >>           no need to put psd=n in a DMARC record, except in the very
> >>           unusual case of a parent PSD publishing a DMARC record without
> >>           the requisite psd=y tag.
> >> 
> >> I think this is the correct place to put the 'not', as it's consistent
> >> with
> 
> >> the second sentence here, as well as this text from the following 
sections:
> I thought psd=n means the domain is not a PSD.  Why would the text say
> the opposite?
> 
> >> 4.8 Organizational Domain Discovery - "If a valid DMARC record contains
> >> the
> >> psd= tag set to 'n' (psd=n), this is the Organizational Domain, and the
> >> selection process is complete."
> 
> This says psd=n means the domain IS the org domain.
> 
> >> 11.8 Determination of Organizational Domain for Relaxed Alignment -  "If
> >> a
> >> PSD domain publishes a DMARC record without the appropriate psd=y tag,
> >> organizational domain owners can add psd=n to their organizational
> >> domain's
> >> DMARC record so that the PSD record will not be incorrectly evaluated to
> >> be
> >> the organizational domain."
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> Besides, to say that a record is "published for" may sound as indicating
> who are the target readers of such publication.  Holding that a domain
> owner publishes psd=n in the hope that its PSO will read it and
> consequently amend its own record is not a valid interpretation of the
> text proposed above...
> 
> Shouldn't it be thus:
> 
>        n:  The domain is NOT a PSD, it is the Organizational Domain for
>           itself and its subdomain.  There is no need to put psd=n in a
>           DMARC record, except in the very unusual case of a parent PSD
>           publishing a DMARC record without the requisite psd=y tag.
> 
> Best
> Ale

Yes.  I've reviewed the change in the rev 31 draft in Git and the not was 
added in the wrong place.

Please update rev 31 and then close the issue again.

Scott K