IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 23 January 2021 11:28 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 178A43A0FF0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 03:28:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 91KfOORtzWE6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 03:28:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 A14FA3A0FEF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 03:28:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611401327; bh=WPdSlYGxRPjcxxNXW87YzUMOcvtlCBq/Yv6ocVsG4kQ=; l=950; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AClaklc5Sx0uMf+LyNXjl2bOY7cQa9qwbScR5g/1uktpjOSxteD1YX22xEGN+ERF8 XHdMlwgrqI+8v7SiaK6XdcWTHBR2mjhPHSnvjIFtx+tz993izn4fpymdXS4SLoBWgV kfs0EVID2n6pVomBjHVToLvwnXpGCfSFL0zqWlHAVFK0JOElCL4htyeOUbNhc
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.00000000600C086F.000003BF; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 12:28:47 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com> <87ima4wu3s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL0qLwbiOrgsEjZU_V6W8e42SRNoUh7CzyngRMR5RLeQpzrxaQ@mail.gmail.com> <44eec884-a3c7-f0e3-4545-1032369ad3fd@tana.it> <CAL0qLwavpE9r6+O+Dm5EyDYzP9_pTpTbbjMzL1mPTyJky5CKmA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Hn5G_WSHjrD3gLL5HwZxDGoV_wxgAuiPc_sutQ4OYhNg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1oxkNUB_E8Q5do5xCruxXGvqY2461u0ZMZ1J5BFE8dTqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <70f6215a-4796-f3ee-3a18-5b91f553f4ca@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 12:28:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1oxkNUB_E8Q5do5xCruxXGvqY2461u0ZMZ1J5BFE8dTqg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/aFhoZs29C4jlGn8XBW3paAFLkao>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 11:28:51 -0000

On Sat 23/Jan/2021 01:55:05 +0100 Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Here's the paragraph in question
>>
>>      <t>To determine the organizational domain for a message under evaluation,
>>         and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC makes use of a Public Suffix
>>         List. The process for doing this can be found in Section 3.2 of the DMARC
>>         specification.</t>
>>
> 
> The concern that I have with this wording is that it is (potentially)
> misleading. "How" DMARC determines the org domain does not matter at all to
> this spec. The important point is that we go to "org-1" in the tree for
> this extra lookup.


+1.  If we don't assume that readers already know what the PSL is, trying to 
establish that context in the Introduction is only a complication.  Later on, 
when Section 3 explains technicalities, the PSL has full citizenship.


jm2c
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email