Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

[Brandon Long <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 8:44 AM Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 12/7/2019 12:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> Remind me again the the additional work is that might be too much?
> >> Isn't it just another DNS lookup for the org domain -1... of which
> >> there are maybe a couple thousand and easily cacheable?
> >>
> >> This seems way less than say the additional work for ARC.
> > It's slightly more.  There's also a check to see if a LPSD (org -1)
> > is a PSD > DMARC participant.  Exactly how to document that is the major
> > unresolved question that we should evaluate experimentally.  It might
> > be one of three
> > things:
>
> First, this sort of exchange highlights the need for considering basic
> operational issues carefully and before publication.
>
> Second, it highlights the challenges of doing that in a way that isn't
> myopic.  What is easy/cheap for highly motivated, expert, well-resourced
> participants might not be all that easy or cheap for the larger Internet
> community.  (This is the operational side of scalability.)
>

Ah, re-reading the spec, I'd guess we're talking about the scalability of
psddmarc.org.

[snip]

Also, any suggestion to rely on a published list ignores the history of
> problems with such lists, as well as at least requiring a careful
> specification for the list and a basis for believing it will be
> maintained well.


I mean, the PSL is already a maintained object.  Is this new detail
something
that has different ownership/privacy/etc concerns than the existing details?

I'm sure I probably missed this, but couldn't we avoid this question by
just mandating
no reporting for non-existing organizational domains?  Is that a
non-starter?

Brandon