Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on DMARCbis, was draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 27 February 2020 04:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA2C3A1147 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:57:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 SglELfICuwyZ for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B98F33A1142 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i4so381669vkc.3 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:57:49 -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=7lHIj9LB0vPqLiTb3LXde2mTh8EdFAmJF0B2RXBgv3k=; b=dnvnALPhzIJgRS7DAXKwPsBklQGlgEPsDGQuIc8dBAm2FSaKpPtVSiCep7suN8WQlt evi0QIemmyzGVODne5onm7xJznd40VV+3eGkMFL1mV1ZW6jIsgZ4OhJBUO4y1tLt+op6 pIQTnuOsKt0Yrv+0K+yOKhgOxYYWfFVq1kM4TlblFPmfxQIiKJzml84kLCG/Vp4niW8n MgQjU1jbO0+uvkrG1u8J8+VaLeSByiInykhgDW7++n91JtJH1OV1/J/eYawbi4E6mHTh BXpOcD9CnKoM3OK2Y53lA5WaB0+UfAYPfulY6swqH0Qz/7tgEYywrXZ2va3UVv34nDSq rqmQ==
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=7lHIj9LB0vPqLiTb3LXde2mTh8EdFAmJF0B2RXBgv3k=; b=Z9HN2HQr+XaG5WUsEZHkyGkK29gJY8nxz8Ii1XCD0sRklAiy/06l+H5B6QTyRJVz7d lCv9DYQhYbOSAVIGkyK5HuH5kC7W2XTsk8p+FkcMjoPs3wFO3nz0xRpYW4887ysBLk9W K4WXDqim309+11xwzvEI0Fm+n1vXFrpYKhCewgAC6VLmH2rPU6BTaBmfoTcEuvwYj9YP yjN/lPtXXDWtbxkIpidSha3OGg4uAS+vm0HA8jiS4Sjbg2FF23UfiR8DTCuDbRz+TW3f HsC2y57y5eiJsRZjt9Ylo63W3snY+4EFiaZbL6+flG9DjrpTLJ0s64QJ2Q8aDjWI7Ko9 A8Ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXibSCj2a32heThwm7SkBtgzRz9KfcWaoijNjZ43Xkxpa07yQSz /ssSqJ/+SLm3O7MNEouSjj6XcMKmZv43nbynKVrIfg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqztIiZ80BwY3WVnA8SeBH+KrFahWNF3pdX+T3EnSMceH3KWivtiy7bDGTMJSti5zljdAxpUmO1KXuJTqOzrV10=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:332:: with SMTP id d18mr1613747vko.89.1582779468700; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:57:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580> <> <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:57:35 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Alessandro Vesely <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fd602d059f878fd7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on DMARCbis, was 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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 04:57:51 -0000

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:44 AM Alessandro Vesely <> wrote:

> +1, albeit I don't think DMARCbis arrives so quickly

I don't actually think there's much stopping us from beginning the work on
DMARCbis now.  Seth has dutifully been collecting those and putting them in
the group's tracker for a while now, and everyone else is invited to make
sure their favorite issues are thus recorded so we can go through them all
when the time comes.

With only a few weeks left in this chair, I won't pull that trigger now,
but you should all expect to get going on that before long.

> 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.
> There are quite some issues about DMARC.  Let me mention aggregate report
> format first, as this brings out a third thing which can be done in
> parallel,
> namely to publish
> [...]

Please make sure that these are all recorded in the tracker so they can be
discussed and factored in when the time comes.

I'm sure there's a bunch of other issues, and we should start to collect
> them.

This started some time ago.  :-)