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

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Kurt

You are absolutely correct.  We were having such discussions about the PSL
origins that I was going back over the DMARC spec and refreshing my
memory on how the PSL was defined and used. I wasn't even looking at the
PSD document.

Tim

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:46 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:58 AM Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Scott
>>
>> PSD DMARC does talk about organizational domains which from the original
>> DMARC spec (section 3.2)
>> does say 'Acquire a "public suffix" list'
>>
>> The addition of the preamble text shouldn't move the document in either
>> direction.
>> I do feel anything which helps focus us on moving forward on DMARC-bis is
>> a good thing.
>> The WG should be able to start writing the PSL document right away.
>>
>
> Tim,
>
> I think that you are being too liberal in applying transitive references.
> The PSD document only refers to the PSL in
>
>    - Informative References
>    - Appendix A.1
>    - Appendix B.3
>    - Appendix C.2 (implementations)
>
> I don't think that it is fair to say that anyone who refers to the org
> domain concept as cited in the DMARC spec is necessarily invoking the PSL.
>
> I do have a problem with the conflation of the org domain with a
> super-organizational "realm" (?) that may impose conditions upon
> organizations that fall within their jurisdictional purview. My main
> concerns are with the potential usurpation of the org domain's policy
> declaration rights. "Moving" the org domain up one level disenfranchises
> the organizations and that is the wrong thing to do IMO.
>
> As to the proposed "let's run this as an experiment pending DMARCbis", I
> don't see how that satisfies Dave's concern about creating new work for
> receivers in order to help a small set of domain (realm) owners. I'm not
> opposed to it, but I just don't see how this solves the issue.
>
> --Kurt
>