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

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

 From a software engineering standpoint, we have an "Lookup" black box 
mechanism.  It should be left open-ended so the DMARC-bis can move it. 
  The default mechanism is the existing DMARC one. Consider PSD a 
Lookup extension to DMARCbis.    DMARCbis can describe "Lookup 
Extensions." Remember, we still TPA design issues and we have an 
extended lookup ATPS deployed.  Until we get a valid TPA method more 
systems accept, we will never be done with DKIM Policy modeling.

Can we please move on to completing DMARC as a standard?


On 2/3/2020 10:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Craig Schwartz <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Murray,
>
>     <<<The chairs will not accept hearsay replies or opinions, or
>     expressions of needing this work but not knowing how to engage;
>     you either give your feedback on the list or privately to the
>     chairs or Area Directors, or you are along for whatever ride
>     results.  Please indicate, as soon as possible, where your support
>     lies given the above.>>>
>
>     In my capacity as managing director of fTLD Registry Services
>     (fTLD), registry operator of the .BANK and .INSURANCE TLDs, I
>     believe PSD would provide invaluable threat intelligence to domain
>     registrants and to TLD administrators like ourselves for
>     NXDOMAINs. PSD has tremendous value to specialized TLDs including,
>     but not limited to, .BRANDS, community-based domains,
>     high-security domains, governments, etc. and as such I believe PSD
>     should proceed. I’ve previously posted to this list expressing
>     this view and while fTLD cannot participate in experimentation due
>     to a prohibition by ICANN, we remain committed to supporting and
>     seeing this work continue.
>
>
> Craig,
>
> Thanks for this, and for one other person that sent to the chairs
> privately (it was a list non-member caught in moderation, nothing secret).
>
> To be clear, however: I think the working group mailing list archive
> has enough of a record that participants think the experiment will be
> useful or even critical to the evolution of DMARC, though people are
> of course welcome to affirm that support for the record.  The question
> being put, however, goes to the form of the experiment and the current
> form of DMARC as a protocol with respect to determining Organizational
> Domains, and whether there are indeed risks to the deployed
> infrastructure that the experiment could become permanent.  That's the
> meaty stuff that would really help to move this along.
>
> -MSK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

-- 
HLS