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

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 18A52120115 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:43:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 xEz1DLbMK9Lm for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (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 1BED8120127 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id m16so278687wrx.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:43:49 -0800 (PST)
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=kgL664yALjy3kjFeNkBVaoicE8y4dRkdZ6muihhKwnw=; b=HVtw4vhWv6KOokaE04gidJeM5PbO6r2N3F7BTiaDu4IINqq5rqmM+Jz4dcq2zQQIMy IecIvjbN8R/8n8vjqxzyrsg4MVCrVqhTIc7J5vZe+evyIQDR3xrP4n9YXg0eET4lfKlA h4BfKp300tx5beqSa961TJi7Qaz9aR0rGiv5NSiFlxLI4pyvwbqRba1KrvCW3QcO0/tl KdJQA5brv7Kn3b8YFkG+XK0D+PSjo5AMfKRJYFQ0ksqt3SskwUZfq2TDIfogc5Uyk1fT 5oLt0xmfRrc+XgSxR1Uq7orj1cLO8I7RYcH4N3BvtnM6+6MYaSQTu9QdFVF2KiJXkKSW jAnQ==
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=kgL664yALjy3kjFeNkBVaoicE8y4dRkdZ6muihhKwnw=; b=qnOOj5F3R51hOtwtnHqxxYAI7BnoNl8bqfXe9r6Xl6HJvmckg0DVHfzfvkzX8lG04o QzlrkD87iCSrue7pcYryhQ2EMDzDlaVztIVjQjaKaMSLHNBrTWP8VKut3uMsNSyllwxY MlW3GVzzFFJDoyfynrpdDUhTlmbUAp8ZZ4sy41SbCD9ujrMc4iWCrL0w27cFJQn6Vrzb bsylqxmxQkALtlqKnqXjow20QYv7DwkSd41r6H6B285nbGr/is5MnQLjJ3BkjsUcB6hD lJIb9Pc60MCYIQNi9j8D0leOTipV310ZMDd6dQpmQHGeS1ttCrF1zQuKpvhTe5rFMfRN dXZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXTAERmXhrhYxZB9kq5BWuD/QVimVd8RxiML3EGvfPamngr1yLl n1W/KhMpgWCvQIQegE2FOYMZgoKKY3PyWPpCqzQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyNF+93flAXkvO9nDgYDY7dtHBcvnbd/3rrlyghJNyM6oczxFX5DCEaKyGY6ZCkjrd9TwnwMA9PUu40fKEo6bg=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:68c5:: with SMTP id p5mr24210015wrw.193.1580859827703; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:43:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580> <CAJ4XoYdgHD7O8wzv1J-=qC_M7-r32Z_UxHakTZWbMFOAU5OSjA@mail.gmail.com> <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580> <CAL0qLwb-9OMzp=JAfDKsALEFY0T8zEWg9LOnfQSPNaJcpfL8rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdp0_=Z-5z+_Tyag=AjrpV53PaU+CBFFRyaeV4nt_XPZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYn_=751b---rqFmiPa9RcdAPBtCEowH1AO1=bN8UEuNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYn_=751b---rqFmiPa9RcdAPBtCEowH1AO1=bN8UEuNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:43:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYcizNggoTRsw8vAmeiA26U=4iJqTq4JSRD4yJHbnOkFmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078560e059dc89c44"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/S-Gx2gbpA08mynN5kG_bQhX1C88>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 23:43:52 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:36 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:44 PM Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:26 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snippage>
>>>
>>> I think what Dave proposed about PSL separation from DMARC is entirely
>>> appropriate and pragmatic, and in fact probably easy enough: DMARC is
>>> changed so that it says the organizational domain is determined using some
>>> process [currently] external to DMARC, and then a second document explains
>>> how that process is accomplished using the PSL (and/or PSD, depending on
>>> when the experiment result comes in).  That's a fairly simple edit overall,
>>> and is actually probably minor and non-controversial compared to some of
>>> the other surgery that I believe is in the queue.
>>>
>>>
>> This would go a long way to alleviating my concerns.
>>
>
> The question to you, then, is: Is it the case that this MUST be done
> *first*?
>
> -MSK
>

Dropping IETF "MUST" on me are you? "Alex, I'll take something between
"MUST" and "SHOULD" for $200".

Let me cogitate on this a bit.

Michael Hammer