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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:20 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 think we've always been assuming that PSD DMARC would be input to
DMARCbis, so we were planning to start the latter but not close it until
the former was completed.  This is the first time I've seen a different
suggestion.

I'd love to hear more opinions about ordering of the work here.  This seems
like an ideal time to review and update our milestones.

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.
>

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.

Seth, our illustrious WG secretary, has been compiling that list, and
perhaps can give us some idea where it stands?

-MSK