Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

ned+dmarc@mrochek.com Mon, 22 February 2021 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+dmarc@mrochek.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 02C633A1D98 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:24:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 lVhe7aN7Sbzh for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plum.mrochek.com (plum.mrochek.com [172.95.64.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADFD53A1DFF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:24:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RVVIYNZBR400FDM8@mauve.mrochek.com> for dmarc@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:19:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1614010770; bh=Jrau8+BFj56mNtdmUyEg3JvaKGxisjn0Q4LCs2GvRI0=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=rxbjT3q8VctzXBed9+Q8nL9eY8lxZRxylKT51nBjvpffFIEyO/lTqI+8sme4ts2DC gGKwn4PZrL7ZwHexwXi8JxtC93HsiIhOj9nWDGW3dp5zyFWlziSGeoGZO3bcMXAdio vM9+A5oGP/R3zumHGE1S+x3bxei5rbIHhH8ply6A=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; Format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RVQNM60R7K005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for dmarc@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:19:28 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Message-id: <01RVVIYLSMP6005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:13:18 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:21:06 -0800" <2e2b6204-244d-dd6f-dced-e4318562710c@gmail.com>
References: <161144436332.13490.10651420808048876097@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADyWQ+EhD0nz71dLtUFwb9V_6uuen-k6E5fpvrCg3ZYzfr2JSw@mail.gmail.com> <ba38a9e4-7f43-c747-2d90-f35de22a8399@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZJaEBrXdE9JOZNOJAgR7iEzfMA86Csi2sNtE5JC7ROUQ@mail.gmail.com> <c5cd9239-b204-255a-48a3-1cdccf18464a@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYrcg__sewPO+EWfJf-5uoHcnQpFqtw-QoXxngHTJvkAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDCeFQU9RTN6osPTrMpap-Djkx5+Czx=-nKqVeXnyEy1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZXkRMLXS7mt28-vEKKk4HgWkP98P8kdYaS1XbcYQvSxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLVGhaBhrmDSYayYrcU9JSq_pY6D8=KoirUGCrOeKeHCQ@mail.gmail.com> <2e2b6204-244d-dd6f-dced-e4318562710c@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_sr4VXBpV7w80IxiwLh36XBsRmE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:24:48 -0000

> >>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all those terms mean and
> >>> how they are all related.

> yes. But it's worse than that.  The current language is not
> automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS
> administration.

> As is being noted, I too think a great deal of the problem is
> over-reliance on the word register.

> It is being used as if it explains a basic difference in administrative
> roles.  It doesn't.  Not even close.


> >> To work with the example you gave here, I agree that "facebook.com" is registered (under "com"), but
> >> disagree that "www.facebook.com" is registered at all;

> > Right, of course it's not.

> I disagree.  Strongly.  The fact that one registration is internal and
> another is through a third-party, semi-regulated service does not make a
> difference, for the use of that word.

> I work with an organization that has an IT department that is just as
> formal typical ICANN-authorized registries.  To get a sub-domain is a
> Very Big Deal.  Don't think for a moment that it is fundamentally
> different than interacting with the TLD registeries.

Wow, I didn't know you had started working for Oracle! Welcome aboard! ;-)

Seriously, this is the rule, not the exception, with large organizations,
especially those that assign significant value to their domain reputations.
There are all kinds of hoops you have to jump through before you'll be able to
get a sub-domain, or for that matter a different name with the company name
embedded in it. And after it's registered, there are ongoing maintenance
requirements.

Registering a domain with, say, GoDaddy is a triviality by comparison.

The SSL certificate situation adds even more complexity, but fortunately
that's not relevant here.

> > I didn't say that it is: I said that
> > people who don't fully understand this stuff *think* it is, and that's
> > the part that the text isn't making clear.

> >> To my mind, "register" involves a specific transaction, sometimes involving money, with whoever gates
> >> access to make those delegations.

> How much do you pay to register to vote?

> However the rest of the above statement is correct.  A transaction to
> record gain access to a resource or to reserve access to it.

> Registration is a process of signing up.  That's all.  And it says
> nothing about the role or relationship of the entity the registration is
> with.

Yep.

				Ned