Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 02 July 2022 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 85DADC14CF09 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2022 04:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YWOVH-N-0671 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jul 2022 04:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-f42.google.com (mail-ed1-f42.google.com [209.85.208.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB8A9C14F72F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jul 2022 04:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-f42.google.com with SMTP id e40so5858266eda.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 04:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XabTv/SOnDM3pvWBuFJzoa0fZEHchQYfzNu5E/zNcXs=; b=eQ+0BRHYqienyei/ceDwtkh7dhi2kGVJND1RtuTI/04ekNEnD6+udc7t5BNMBKXvp0 YwtjipYF+vh43qsPnHexhUmylC7vZEB/CV5C3SoBH3jVAdXFdmB6hL/gryQXDNTFTSf+ UAA6Q6RtgMUki4KsQvQ5qv46EUSCehfihkAAi5VPc2l8DSCGNIeTdnizYMQRm9uIQU7U QYdaH4lDMaU/JvBVM4vkozPdZlyLCgQmb/eFNRZWonvUbnYsmOTJyRxcP9sl2gaRbWis BPLmXXL/cvP5Vn0ayBj2U7sToysBcM8qPgqJ3kQtPQ1aKVJNrhK1Y3bDhobh0eUIPP1c +TyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/qhz4Fx46lEqFfbhV176lvUGcgdLkrmlMee5Milp2x7uhEibic TbmkzLADk2gd6ZxgEngNS3gKZ8vdRvo4+fbmd8jalmGR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sYuwgK64aGr01Yst6UxWapBiIhHnMeTzGJ7/eRBTh6QRpjV5uQjPQxHx5w+EmtVV2QuyPuHptTfgfA9IYMBhQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d604:0:b0:439:b3a2:d5c4 with SMTP id c4-20020aa7d604000000b00439b3a2d5c4mr3524898edr.278.1656761533947; Sat, 02 Jul 2022 04:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2106279.dWI8RDzgUi@zini-1880> <CALaySJLFY6s6+4xFs9iu-YSbrihnThgDEkb1+g2NUAt-QS_mTw@mail.gmail.com> <95b1d241-0e3c-edf3-4768-cf08b7d73283@tana.it> <CALaySJJcd1e+iT0CwbQ738fMaX2-UQ+q7NvduK4a7J+H5Q0dVg@mail.gmail.com> <05AB0F55-F8EF-40F7-97BE-23C9B96747D2@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <05AB0F55-F8EF-40F7-97BE-23C9B96747D2@kitterman.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 07:32:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKzL4BsvaMb23XCsExfF2ns8C=n1x1PyA7W0+Xt4DsY2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ULcthwWX4SUFspvx_mHOIlnQuxQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] "psd=" tag early assignment
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:32:19 -0000

That's true, while we won't have the PSL in the algorithm, we will
still be talking about PSDs, so the term will remain defined.  OK,
that makes sense, Scott; thanks.

Barry

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 9:46 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
>
> If we use a different term, we'll need to define it.  Fundamentally, I think changing the name only adds a level of indirection (and thus complexity).
>
> Current:
>
> PSD (which is defined in the document) yes or no or use tree walk.
>
> Proposed:
>
> Role (needs a definition) PSD (defined), Org (defined as not a PSD), and Subdomain (which isn't defined and is technically wrong - all three might be subdomains).
>
> Whether you directly use psd as the tag or not, the question is still is it a PSD or not.  The suggested change doesn't do anything towards getting away from PSD as a concept or a defined term.
>
> I think that by hiding it in the definitions, it will be more confusing, not less.
>
> Scott K
>
> On June 27, 2022 1:27:37 PM UTC, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> >I have to say, as a participant, that I have more than a little
> >sympathy for this suggestion or some derivative of it.  Using "psd" as
> >the tag name is rooted in history that will be lost as we move away
> >from using a public suffix list.
> >
> >Barry
> >
> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 6:20 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun 26/Jun/2022 18:05:44 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Please comment in this thread about whether you agree with making the
> >> > registration now, or whether you do not agree and why.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to make a last appeal to use more intuitive symbols to be used instead
> >> of the current ones:
> >>
> >> instead of | use      | to mean
> >> -----------+----------+-----------------------------------------------------
> >> psd=u      | role=sub | the default subdomain role (never needed)
> >> psd=n      | role=org | the org domain (only needed with non compliant PSDs)
> >> psd=y      | role=psd | a PSD (needed if PSD published DMARC record.)
> >>
> >>
> >> The reason to use cryptic symbols seems to be to discourage their usage, which
> >> I can hardly understand.  I'd be OK with the current symbols if the WG can
> >> explain somewhat better, possibly as part of the spec itself, the rationale of
> >> using counter-intuitive yes/ no/ undefined to express that three-valued value.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Ale
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dmarc mailing list
> >> dmarc@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >dmarc mailing list
> >dmarc@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc