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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Tue, 04 February 2020 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F47120130 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:26:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2pZLSlyUtzxj for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D77912012E for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p6so12434060vsj.11 for <>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:26:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xSou1n1RHyrbXUgAHRVfoRT98L35jX3xin5DTRocxIg=; b=inHziCBEEVO3/YsQKfXZYTwFKg+M/6czIxdfCA54Ucl/eZ/CzY0hc1SWYd/balsLSB GDbv/Eq1s/H/BM31mCqfBf9hDs5qQxUvrJfHAt+/Bzpz2UyehLZkGqvZkMPPtdHMbHjn IY1u6SH2jLIe4RxBuYb7i3fdOMnCbLXN96eolND0yK0E28eTla6nOMt44uh8qbB9YlFi Lbk9GC1MrLcEdWmeNhfPUTfSPK++v6OVjYNRBNh/5hEFll1lOA8F7LVO8eoA8X2Q28Uq +8J2AzdO7s6Xj0G+SKYS7DPzbSUBTqAperTAs+RRnbHCqZuY0taK3kc0r/8Qcp+lNmrZ 5pMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xSou1n1RHyrbXUgAHRVfoRT98L35jX3xin5DTRocxIg=; b=VbdhvEpEizaNcI3SgnqY/WZI7m3E+mIJF5bbxFHwf/+23NJerJC2NB77wSMxyZVJDc ddPoOsptIsKdM1ThMXAcibb0FWihpWmOmioTh4IKqPr+cH8L59F9gPbLufDJU6Wl3gjw HI6f421JFBTA3fqvvxOkUelLwn4nFvVLzZY5Z9DOW1Rkdj4BatliTwR0lxo+2Uk4BLrQ in3HpyxDEYBdSsFWMvcrAFBRdp3l+b2W9PXQw0x6lKCBPYEOmDNvZqxu4QTmvWoUGKpR 88is5gIV4gkH4R8e3+NH4OBNSPdCTdwjalkVsIIBzBsoVQxSv4dYjn0+u2UrsoAaYaSp e+ZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUIXIbvsYg5d5ICZ5C9HuHvUJAJvSsfa/Ze0tMTzExBfpCM2TQE 4ad63mJKKHp9LpBRutuIMojHNvuqQ20iz0YhfM3cCg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwr9xWrX4cgIavqWqgrh5xkkop0YQCVhlVrxiFgVRdX47D+bsTYDyr/XyTG6243FqTZZzyKBQBENk0Rygm7WQ8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:376:: with SMTP id f22mr19417151vsa.175.1580851601542; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:26:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580> <> <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:26:30 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002710f3059dc6b26e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 21:26:44 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:20 PM Scott Kitterman <> 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

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?