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

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 05 February 2020 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CB61200C1 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:41:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] 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 ClsHq9vOCyra for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E958C120059 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:41:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d62so907448oia.11 for <>; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:41:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=ryOZq1uBQd84XtCk/+RJUY65fR+6QkPBndSh3i0ChR4=; b=MctTa62FhLPWOGUEgDfqe4vbEPKO4L81nZV2s4aGR10s97KSi/lHttpLl8643vRcBw 8QS/uF4c2qmPx6RB85Q0C1pZE8sPKCjTzaaeyYpGHQlsuo2zzqsX6lIXpkTnww4CXg9N C05WHf3gTfP3bCJLBJgHO751kaWq9rX44uLc5rrdSA+cFMj7gVhVFmwBB+/QTp40e7pn e7Enu4Wy8p6SSl0RBAc2Z7G9CXZD29NFafIlf16pZe2AGB2QRmuU7dTPxHVNwPICz37w EZRMdU0idp11SAFhZngPtKtAvd8F+x+PXZfnCbWd4H5RgKuX0hFzHb1FZ7DJwQtEfzss HIkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=ryOZq1uBQd84XtCk/+RJUY65fR+6QkPBndSh3i0ChR4=; b=g4ZHFRY7EP1J4QKoPpI0Qo30RVDwXpLqcWCDtym8WrL5bSC5gZHjFSo+XWpzwz1jnl mp8g/L7PAVQhRy74n7bj7KqHK2hvHOtSVjqw7waoxlHE7h+BnMqKB9pEQ4ma/DFwuXoc IwmLk7txOqB9dHtzzMCR72bGMR9k7dWYZttX8tPJMJFi45gGMjUOP7XtDoazuGkaceQ8 udz5LOxhj5yrJ3E6eDBXsEXoWW6iFwxRxtKAXqFA32ei1YgvN3IKCz7mlMi0Cg2vKJbh bj8ay9bsvS9Q7tid96dKddp0bNUJhvwXnheg5Sy2o5Jf04BjfvHGeFfull4CSUZLDqeh jCPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVCIbUf1yQZnNIkZ2AmfPE/9EeGWp1oim8sIYFO0tBGOY83RSPY B3Ig3CarjqF+yeVuOgKL7ejZTn3P4TA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyPpH48sYZAgm9RAO2AR6ptxRjb+U8j/OlwroRrj0W6rchVo7pbCqcDEuvsz7KPUZLWA9UDoA==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c7cb:: with SMTP id x194mr3065995oif.157.1580913713398; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:e84c:3508:22dd:d63c? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:e84c:3508:22dd:d63c]) by with ESMTPSA id t131sm7830061oih.35.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:41:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Scott Kitterman <>,
References: <> <> <> <4570465.bmySQvRiU0@l5580>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:41:49 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4570465.bmySQvRiU0@l5580>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------82BBC78642D3087E7C646428"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on 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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:41:57 -0000

On 2/4/2020 10:13 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:20:14 PM EST Dave Crocker wrote:
>> I don't recall that scaling limitation was an embedded and acknowledged
>> fact about that spec. And with a quick scan I don't see anything about
>> that in the document.
>> There is a difference between having some folk be critical of an
>> experiment, versus have its non-scalability be an admitted limit to its
>> future.  That is, you or I or whoever might know a spec sucks and can't
>> succeed, but that's different from having the formal process declare
>> that an experiment is /intended/ not to scale, which seems to be the
>> case here.
> This claim seems to me to be unrelated to anything in the draft.  Would you
> please point to where you found this?

Murray's 12/3 email:

"I don't think it's based entirely on naivety.  I think there's a 
healthy dose of feeling that the experiment as it's currently designed 
couldn't possibly scale to "the entire domain namespace" and/or "all 
servers on the Internet", so in that sense from where I sit there's a 
built in safeguard against this becoming a permanent wart."

>>> Why would the expectations for Experimental be higher than for
>>> Informational?  LMTP is Informational, and it certainly needs to succeed.
>> As a rule -- or certainly a solid pattern -- Experimental means that the
>> document wants to be standards track or BCP but needs some vetting
>> before being permitted that honor.  Informational docs don't have an
>> expectation of making it to standards track.
> Would you withdraw your objections if we made this informational?

It would eliminate my concerns about this being Experimental, of 
course.  With an equal 'of course', it would not affect the technical 

> Help me understand.

I'll try with the other note I'm considering. However my intent for that 
note is as a summary, not as offering some new material.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking