Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:22:21 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
> > As Secretary, there are three items that have not yet reached consensus
> > that must be resolved during WGLC:
> > 
> > 1. What further context is needed in the introduction
> > 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to implement
> > are needed
> > 3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only NXDOMAINs
> 
> It's been a pretty quiet last call.  I think the document itself is probably
> in pretty good shape with these questions as outliers.  Shortly I plan to
> send a separate email on each of these with my perspective on both the
> issue and my read of the discussion so far so we can focus on driving each
> question to closure.

I think we've had some good discussion since Friday.  Here's where I think we 
are now:

#1.  I think we incorporate both the specific suggestions Tim Draegen made 
earlier in the month and we should incorporate changes from Kurt Andersen in 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/7Qjo6oEoUpPGvCWVFZHyBeCDI44 :

Drop the sentence from section 1, make the 2.2 change, drop willing to accept 
in 2.6 (which I think cures the section 4 comment), and make the 3.5 change.  
Addition of np is covered in #3.

#2.  I think we've worked out text and we just need to add it.

#3.  I think we're close on text with the only open questions being does np 
fall back to sp or p and do people agree with the Appendix A words.

Pretty close.  If the group accepts my rationale for the sp fallback, then I 
think it's pretty clear what changes the document needs after last call.

Scott K