Re: [dmarc-ietf] A tweak to draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 29 February 2020 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 BE7103A15D8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:43:06 -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_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=M2x1/Oo8; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=lLHrhmYY
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 W2K3NhkU692z for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D5913A15D7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C90F802C0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:43:03 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1583019783; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=BT31zf6XtMFfLGYU0CUi+X3mWB44JZxuTzSmMq1O1cA=; b=M2x1/Oo8GSoQneoDWJi4N20d6cdyngu52v4E8w6A4xsU3ztEY/WMmZxCllU6DYxutmP54 gLB+WYMwkSl4irjBA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1583019783; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=BT31zf6XtMFfLGYU0CUi+X3mWB44JZxuTzSmMq1O1cA=; b=lLHrhmYYcp2BDaw6IwDw04gAq6wYq0Dwf8IBwaQ9oAGATridv/C7D2aDmFN28OLAdh8q+ HVurtE2KLLM40HT6yD6Z/eFd4vRfxAtABDNMY5iPObzD9YG/Eh7SS/nRwytCb19g+x3we2Q EbJuWv5NBMzMVZptCRIvpFqKa5XgdzCp+t8Nb6Y/7WvaVd8bNUuvTidYiz08ocNnDHLqJwu GA5KPAiHcJ5GVGDIWgzqk6BQAg6I0Ij2x9SZtEPKZIa7cxMk/f+qcjan9kARJO1tNs4RwQL rChdwyFAmh5uuLyR/dtoYxYufI9mpNs6WbppEq9OPnJyYYnN9s9hLLP/hI+Q==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DF52F801F5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:43:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:43:02 -0500
Message-ID: <2284143.qfsaAzHM67@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1rV6zzuSjdEVbV6cj7AYJoUx2N5uMrL6=ySQAUr8KxWug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwaU4-74Lq5vYTBMhkj60i+zAbY6JQdOdTVyUoY=pd+QvA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Hajp=hX9=8VVJLOJVZ82gLQmOaOJ7BAOhuXtzGi77ogw@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1rV6zzuSjdEVbV6cj7AYJoUx2N5uMrL6=ySQAUr8KxWug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dC3HFoXAjOOzTFTvXYll01yy8Yo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A tweak to 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: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 23:43:07 -0000

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 2:59:44 PM EST Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:16 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we're going down the road of definitions, RFC8499 defines what a
> > "Public suffix" is
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8499#page-28
> > 
> > Which could assist in the Public Suffix Domain definition here.
> > If this makes sense, I can offer some suggested text
> 
> No, that does not help. RFC8499 just refers back to RFC6265 section 5.3
> which in turn invokes the PSL - that's Dave's problem with DMARC in the
> first place.
> 
> I think that Murray's suggestion about importing definitions from DMARC
> (RFC7489) makes much more sense than forking elsewhere since this is a riff
> on DMARC.

I think the only thing that might be missing is explicitly importing the term 
organizational domain from RFC 7489.  I think it wouldn't hurt to add it, but 
I don't think it's needed.  As early as the second sentence of the 
introduction the draft is discussing organizational domain and clearly in a 
DMARC context (even with an RFC 7489 reference).  I don't think there's any 
real risk a reader of the draft would be confused.

Scott K