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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 08 September 2019 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 D674F12008A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 04:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 6AD4b4eLrgVv for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 04:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F98120074 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 04:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1567941751; bh=SeONTV7IqBtKNxqoxUNptMJTcod+QS9q3l4uk8V0Dpg=; l=893; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DgzVd6TZ2WCl42Ju0pqwghtFaC6M/jPuUr4veniE2PmR+4rGaIfzUCJVB7+IFxild tV4jYPNTt1H6COyz3wzdhZ7vi3RQmHaz7hyXWEWyCaLvHKhJ6Rzp+Yja77yiqXKGeq hg9pPEFmAMW9pgB9goxDsZtcOFi84MEVU2ROBPScRM0tX5eb9iZ0lIN2p8L/Q
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC081.000000005D74E476.000052AD; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 13:22:30 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwacbAT04tckpPcRcnOt=1QByOBeJ7uDf6rNK6NRwtxZYg@mail.gmail.com> <51219bbd-3785-e6bb-414a-bd564b6c856d@gmail.com> <2922527.kgd3cNqxNO@l5580> <3d886a18-7dc2-2c7a-4d0a-8c1ae0bfb4c5@tana.it> <7788EC9D-D4F7-4B00-863D-7289E8B2AB41@kitterman.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <aac8b1ee-b82b-0c9f-7d8b-bf7268ff38e1@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 13:22:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7788EC9D-D4F7-4B00-863D-7289E8B2AB41@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/YQGEeOE3py6EjHZmOf20je60wos>
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: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 11:22:35 -0000

On Thu 05/Sep/2019 15:35:29 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> If we didn't care about privacy, this would be easy.  That's the hard
>>> part that does not have a clear solution.  One thing that is clear is
>>> that it's not the PSL.  PSL is a collector of assertions from operators,
>>> so it fails to meet the attributes laid out in A.1.>>
>> Failure reports are considerably less implemented than aggregate ones. 
>> The current spec doesn't mention any privacy risk in its Security 
>> Considerations section.  However, some concern must exist, otherwise the
>> difference in implementations cannot be easily explained.  The I-D at hand
>> touches on this point marginally.  A general consideration would better
>> fit in DMARCbis.>
> That's because there's an entire separate section on privacy considerations.


My bad English.  By "current spec" I meant rfc7489.


Best
Ale
--