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

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.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 31DD7120130 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:50:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 MJr7pIxhWK4t for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80F012011A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id w15so24910516wru.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:50:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=QYFqEGrJfD61YFA7OFLu7oWmafLLXi9GeECCV9N1yTw=; b=rCxqJFdjH5DzDWEcaOWNctKg92BO2qb600VH/uq5jldRlhTkkFl+bf/UOLaKm27wOr nKMPOrwfIM1zGrQB3P1fX+K3kJr3zQBS/51HwX0na2kA/syFy+njbWYRsEO0aai46aK6 DGp1lXyCplfkVT8ly3+240fklL85rFdY8YE6LRHMYMiowML5Wr7dy7VK2AYIufr/vltt +7VMhuWaqxicT0IUJ8C+qDWF9GqtwB7EvnMxJnB7/XtaNNskUBxQWPUO1WZPtb41prlI jBaS9uzz1fZF15sYrm6BfvdFzqqixNqdfIfrI4P094UnnDbo0ejn46ialGV4p+nm9mcK h0xQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=QYFqEGrJfD61YFA7OFLu7oWmafLLXi9GeECCV9N1yTw=; b=AAVhkSGgKP75yhlpXRg/Y/xVuYLPYffCNqmyFCNtvIC7xLtiGhraWB9KwY4kwtizSV tS7cgE+bHkPW1JUgDeONmc6jUqUhMdDnMQIgBcGymiw5pztObfazxsqXbtCgfm31Ah69 cPNMgVX2hytYkwY3IDomLfY5PDjj4LI7dud6OHph2sANrWmU57d65XcDmX3XUl71o2d4 GPN/MnUzXRYNpc62Uu1eZ91hhm64V1IcCFe7eRJXAdf5VJjDNi4AFJ28ryOEGJQJKhWA vE49EgT5LH34EzP3pnOa+efb03GzdSP2Bal1s5Cm56VrJvm/8YaQwLYsKOQp2uWKa2vz Vs8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVLZ9KccKx7WrX8tGZt4nGIAGpN7VUb9YFzxI2U2nmy5JpdMWMm vlbTMSWYhRqbrENTLs+y8nb0m5n+YDlFrNYIYLMjFJog
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyp1K2ruwoFfwA6HpGwTmneqLGQk1a0YkX0DES1pMx+uBVvbWrLe8TnyKk4t1+FYFf2mQ4H1HBy8lPcQI6NJmQ=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f10a:: with SMTP id r10mr23946444wro.202.1580849434364; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:50:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY-v-VS-Wai-aqGRPOj1i8HxqMrYybzsNJGzN2dTHvG9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYe4MKmCuFXhshzek97ABeHk1YzZCJof8EPKZSGJzJUzOw@mail.gmail.com> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:50:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYdgHD7O8wzv1J-=qC_M7-r32Z_UxHakTZWbMFOAU5OSjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa92b6059dc630a3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ZAKLE1owG7AZfg2-untDlT5VglI>
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 20:50:38 -0000

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


> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>