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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 4B847120170 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:20:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=3cVv/bCh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=irbpIZ2F
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 Lv0MyIZO37KW for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7099912012E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34E9F80308 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:20:05 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1580851205; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=iNQbQ1j9zy/VaJjfYA9k5utboEvUDv1uL4l4srziOPs=; b=3cVv/bChWUJHkj7y8wujkfqDCP7LKO9uhFRCFvAd6G2XNCN1nqJkhyoi oojBkokUmFlw+wlHASkJTPghwT6TBA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1580851205; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=iNQbQ1j9zy/VaJjfYA9k5utboEvUDv1uL4l4srziOPs=; b=irbpIZ2FFSEvjqhnI2Ca3kpin2+BhaB6R+b4Hvcz5AeCYcJI9D4FJsb3 snPR4fJAt7P0BU9De8UemqOkv0YPUmulPv9UoYILHeyKO47fompoI8qASQ kTQ8aPd8CTTdq0s9JDS4Trlo3cm6sgHpgtcTHl079FJoJ9SQlCq33nko5d Y44c3xAyh0Yggc7jNXHRodyySaWLsptP/AEmRp5zue3Z0BH9v/qkEpiXSS /cJm7wLymyV4Xn7L0H/44mVR7ErDHS+VUZdKACNZsSF3A2uh9OQ0mzWAvb Q6cT7+Gb+pbDZ0jXkHVDI1ishC8tIvEdcR0ByDgfcGswS4Z1pmpDsg==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 879DBF801EA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:20:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 16:20:05 -0500
Message-ID: <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYdgHD7O8wzv1J-=qC_M7-r32Z_UxHakTZWbMFOAU5OSjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580> <CAJ4XoYdgHD7O8wzv1J-=qC_M7-r32Z_UxHakTZWbMFOAU5OSjA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/VlwBSO7STfMOxmTH9bxVHwJlGr0>
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 21:20:08 -0000

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:50:12 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:44 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> 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