Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> Mon, 16 November 2020 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <craig@ftld.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 CFB663A10E7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:40:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ftld.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 xVN9rU7X-15a for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (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 B7A9A3A10E8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id h21so3062364wmb.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:40:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ftld.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y4gMG1ZmT4dCZ334raHSC69LbRgHN8hcIZBcdmByBtg=; b=fhs9jnvRfkL9vmelA2AfChCZ7qlitUVt66rVMBlOaZLlDde4NAF9yexAHvsSXRWadX 9qHcdYO2A8PxvH23QVS5bAJoBaU0pIgmLuMFBjtNWd7NxjcFFz+zmB+h31xBB3agAfSV 6wPLlBi43z4uBH6q0wjsrmLmtC+N5eQ4TPJCQ=
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:cc; bh=Y4gMG1ZmT4dCZ334raHSC69LbRgHN8hcIZBcdmByBtg=; b=MaXkkhztE0Ts5N3Z85Ww9HkPSMT3CDrOTJM8dqLFooSOPjchwfPWiNJf9U6IFvNCxr yKEEWXMsNIsU9C7LX6BrRJTjfFYOUVvYC1GkutsqweE2f5DjBIoyqbl7bTqDjFoplNgX 2/BuVOvmss7vXtlyhj6b1FF487Q1JESrfnxIuVDcUlhiluK/ddHel24oUxpTEHLUJYXa GS/6aHXV6pG+Y5b+d/9RJVUZZBMMrApNashAW7k74RP8tZbGCUC+x4WdDHW2ANMJM8fT 0eh5Yxadvui/LaYkxELDMBf7KNmTxlSgoXCoUIPvurGDG/eL2beKwlc0bXBxuPgj7E+W Hoyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5322WJsK0LiC2gQar77YwynDOrhLtY2vetcEfwM10LssvIh2E3Y+ Pu4ceN6uRh6VRbQqPvQ9xR5IyGFGDLZ1eG8JHSsnCw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy0k1K+AGdov0KUaA4NAmNdYDKlVNwpfGo82JrHZlqRJwjo+MLYsNtSMjypcEb/bveWIdDfNNNO76k0lU+UsQ4=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e087:: with SMTP id x129mr15542351wmg.2.1605537605935; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:40:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+HWEK=wm5WLTcgiB0JBY0GubntOp3Qhzfr68YB2__RRNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+HWEK=wm5WLTcgiB0JBY0GubntOp3Qhzfr68YB2__RRNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:39:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ+U=1oKdnAPyhtWp_AXbLV09ZTAjne0ROUefR-dTSzrqZemJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000acfc1e05b43a5a8c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/cBiswcufT--DrweIDnSNp-_loSA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for 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: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 14:40:11 -0000

Hi Tim,

As fTLD Registry Services (fTLD), registry operator of the .BANK and
.INSURANCE Top-Level Domains, was instrumental in initiating this work
within the IETF in 2018, we are keenly interested in providing any support
or input needed to see it through to its successful conclusion.

fTLD has, in our role as registry operator, mandated specific security
policies/requirements for domain names in our zones inclusive of email
authentication (i.e., DMARC plus SPF when the domain is used for email).
For security and reputational purposes, our interest in protecting our TLDs
extends to NXDOMAINs, which for us come in two “flavors.” The first is
registered domains that are not in the respective zone because they do not
meet the baseline security requirements of having in-zone name servers
(e.g., ns1.bankname.BANK) and being signed with DNSSEC. The second is the
more common unregistered domain name.

As fTLD is prohibited by our contract with ICANN from placing non-approved
DNS resources record types (e.g., TXT records) into the TLD DNS Zone, there
is a process we can pursue with them to seek removal of the prohibition. In
consultations with ICANN that started in 2017, we came to understand that
the existence of an RFC on this topic (i.e., TXT records in the TLD DNS
zone) could help fTLD, and registry operators like ourselves, overcome this
obstacle with ICANN. It is for this reason and to further enhance the
security of our TLDs that we undertook this work within the IETF.

As I’ve shared candidly with Seth Blank, Scott Kitterman, Murray Kucherway
and more recently Tim Wicinski, my expertise is more in the policy arena
than technical and I’ve done all I can to stay abreast of this work,
contribute when appropriate and drive it in any way possible as I said
earlier to it successful conclusion.

At this point I’d appreciate understanding what obstacles remain and what
fTLD, and our internal working group, can do to advance this work.

Thanks very much and good luck this week at IETF.

Craig


*--*
Craig Schwartz
Managing Director
fTLD Registry Services | .BANK & .INSURANCE
Mobile: +1 202 236 1154
Skype: craig-schwartz
www.fTLD.com





On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:42 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> All
>
> During the IESG reviews of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd, there were several issues
> raised with some of the document.   Most of them are editorial but the one
> big item was the description of the Experiment.   The chairs sat down and
> broke out the experiment section into three separate experiments, and
> included language on how to capture the data to confirm how the experiment
> worked.
>
> It's enough of a change that we wanted to do a second working group last
> call to make sure the working group agrees with our changes. The diff of
> the current version with the previous version is here:
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-09
>
> This starts a *one* week second working group last call for
> draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
>
> Please review the changes and offer up comments to the working group.
>
>
> This working group last call 20 November 2020
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>