Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

worley@ariadne.com Wed, 22 April 2020 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 D00C13A090C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
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 cVo0DH7bms8o for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 583473A0902 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.107]) by resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id R3t3jB4HND4wER45OjWs7r; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 01:21:58 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1587518518; bh=nVKfE6iwmi0q2OHWXdTyXfQpzpSnw5GPOHcqSzrKl3c=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=AnRPpNjMCaaywn98hTBelAav/Gt0H35tWeNCblnViEbhJIBMVf1OpqpyfNxZ7EZru TFP7MVtk6xsZ+ARDhFryF8apqBG3fu2SDnqjli/61fLgWjB0MOBY2/hI5p25x/Kbvs k+SSCMQtEaJQr14Cjg5hxaWoHPuee4qsmX6OUIy5wv3f8o5mLLh9Ndo1UIE3xjGikY ZNNgWR9KuusdxYHIjgePhiZGq6KJWAmFeS23BkBIOqZaxbeOmMwyMdb9M2k6s18K0J 53iYwXO4oxTlyub3oF9FTVTf+biUSySmHst6s2xGNz2MtPUhLgvy5yP7aWN+1rG+1/ cxQ2qUXpOi2jg==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id R45JjkMHVvcxUR45MjIrCj; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 01:21:57 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 03M1Lq0r017103; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:21:52 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 03M1LpC2017092; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:21:51 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, dmarc@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmarc-psd.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4666D39F-85F5-4AD2-A754-11FED0A5C169@kitterman.com> (scott@kitterman.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:21:50 -0400
Message-ID: <871rogwc0h.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/UI8DTrYQo7sdOR5ujC38stmP6jg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 01:22:01 -0000

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> writes:
> [important discussion clipped for brevity]
> If you want to add it and are confident we aren't diving into a deep,
> deep hole, I don't strongly object.  Just let me know what to add.

Well, my review amounted to about 5 pages of ordinary text, and my
follow-up e-mail about a page and a half.  If I was unclear regarding
what I thought should be done to make the document clearer to the
unsophisticated reader, please get back to me so that I can improve my
review style.

Dale