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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:50:12 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:44 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> > > I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread
> > 
> > starting
> > 
> > > from Dave's post in August, I believe his concerns are valid. My
> > > question
> > > to the chairs and the group as a whole is whether an experiment can be
> > > constructed that is valid and useful without "comingling" PSD issues and
> > > concerns with the core of DMARC at scale? That is, the group that is
> > > seriously interested does their experiment amongst themselves to produce
> > > data that supports and justifies such changes in the wild.
> > 
> > I think the draft as written works as you suggest.  I think Dave's
> > concerns
> > are really about DMARC (or at least 99.6% about DMARC) and not
> > significantly
> > related to this addition.  As designed, the experiment is self-contained:
>
> And those are my concerns as well. I would rather see DMARCbis go forward

I agree on DMARCbis.  I don't think advancing this draft has a significant 
effect on that.  Worst case, if DMARCbis is done before we can reach any 
conclusions about PSD DMARC, then we publish DMARCbis without PSD DMARC in it.

I don't see anything about PSD DMARC being inherently on the critical path for 
DMARCbis.  I suspect the current major obstacle to DMARCbis is that the 
question of how to take the PSL out of the equation is unsolved, despite one 
IETF WG that was supposed to be dedicated to the question.

I don't think not publishing PSD DMARC helps move DMARCbis forward, so I think 
it's a false choice.

Scott K

> 
> > For senders, it only affects PSDs that have been listed as participants.
> > 
> > For receivers, it only affects receivers that choose to deploy code to do
> > the
> > additional check related to PSD DMARC.
> > 
> > As far as I can determine, there is zero impact on anyone else.
> > 
> > We have running code.  I'll leave it to the chairs to evaluate the
> > consensus.
> > 
> > Scott K