[dmarc-ietf] Possible draft-ietf-dmarc-psd revision

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 85E7F3A1132 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=/W2FgFZ3; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=fS1bCgxX
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 eoPaYXCR5Oeo for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AEEC3A112F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBDA0F802AE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:05:16 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1583978716; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=4XLC/24WFzoia/bzg37uAbPkVAEVnrZxLOogKJdBCUY=; b=/W2FgFZ3FX8lFHdTUpofd+lTjL/LxCMw9YRZNtyQmEmK1GmBGBTx/0aV91uD6bfROiT/k Uesl0rkc84IXX2RDg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1583978716; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=4XLC/24WFzoia/bzg37uAbPkVAEVnrZxLOogKJdBCUY=; b=fS1bCgxX1t2KTHVPtrer34ttjQ1nPm0V839U+6pHXnqpJVSGPqxKJqX1tJ8boSy4AEF8o DbkREEZhxhNY/hYHlPnghaxMkCkD+vtajssRVqEMTVxOfxksv2u3vkz2lDBUVeyurB/VWyH 1kNCYwk22GyHQfJUqb2qPcCKm2YxJ0mGO7eIXpivldrzywtAX6XAk1Cw38Kewbm1kql7tds vq0gjX+TfivXhF331B0zYSFDQORE/CteGNeCduwwvS/39XkUwfevwzgo4Rnau9RocZN7qJm SnXaJ/uERTYIzmIRTZRRdVHu2Bt9MGiEnZwPA4ZQARxHgB44YTGbsHcp27iA==
Received: from l5580.localnet (unknown [24.248.18.5]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE71AF80218 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:05:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:05:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4811592.KVNcoShC6a@l5580>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/NxziXkGNnEHoxGZnr6uUnYfz8AM>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Possible draft-ietf-dmarc-psd revision
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, 12 Mar 2020 02:05:20 -0000

If the chairs are up for it, I'd like to publish a revision to the draft that 
fixes the typo mentioned on the list two weeks ago and adds mil to the list of 
participating PSDs (they have published a record since the last draft update).  
I can also explicitly import organizational domain from RFC 7489 as recently 
discussed.

Please let me know your preference.

Scott K