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

Andrew Kennedy <> Tue, 04 February 2020 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B675A12012E for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:49:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Hj7edhya2Vo6 for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:49:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B0812011A for <>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s85so13693975ill.11 for <>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:49:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FJvqBKlYv4C9BkZooIuzLleeF/ojuztz9NsbjE+Xe30=; b=VZdB004njfo/GWihET5GEuYwletS+tllDen6G2qoSyR4Cq270zBaUdHhNFHHWW9wXN 56AscbfDCbv7u4AIgk2lvyCOowL424fy44LszAy8CIN+bcAT1nExIBwkQAgRwxQt1UL6 nJoJzPiqnZkNIEpguaP/FEhSkqi2nTmVfwr5L9bYuwseGa87UDAIa0yWgs4c5fviQAeT /cAMVwrLaYgsCbYxgT07A7uw9Tii9hfJqL4Azx1EafNlhYEYxU/d5BS7gsiKPgMFlVx0 KvOqHNpYLtL0WZ21XW40v6yh1Vq7WzohHOng7r9WSf4IUCB/aoxGvloT6SFFfYwted+W C/Lw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FJvqBKlYv4C9BkZooIuzLleeF/ojuztz9NsbjE+Xe30=; b=cDfxg/NU/NIfRkm9jYiVkFYsU6ti71vEj2pczz3pLooONOljJaVEJKBjp8C2t1TDbH Kwc2epamoBF46L0FBH9D7gH1+TbtG7MWFULVKUrFy/m9u8c74rB1D8liaBfXVLCm6WQr Up/ZJf5sq1OuTK0v8RjTl8UCHbVprAA8xoIzvG1bdB2izIEriVJYe3VASeRAxZyGOuGP OxXFq1jTZZzAhP6EuOhkLByZbSDWSc34gDi1dNKpzIMl8OwlAgzG2X59g5EwbOssC6YQ TZGBoS65uTk0eRG7VbVlq0MBG7ouRXHSALNJaKiB4dN388kbORXmWo6uiX0mNPwEWh4Y zRwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW8FGOlXJ1tMsjW8k9Oj26eb1y3HJANE12IJhmCDo+JWux7Ym4M LXlpfamrYQe4V4nYfIwoM+M61fQUWefoJM6HbTF+wwAe6x0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCt+hJHj3VLh0U05K8754fcYPCdzn1APEEuBN7IiYJDlfUj5vQNRObKq1RvbGQfaSCW5CaHM9+hcYmO2MhF2w=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:8307:: with SMTP id f7mr23152757ild.73.1580849355047; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:49:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <3386547.LmEUfHP9lS@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <3386547.LmEUfHP9lS@l5580>
From: Andrew Kennedy <>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:49:03 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Scott Kitterman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040468f059dc62c7c"
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:49:18 -0000

Scott--I agree whole-heartedly.  One has to wonder if delaying or impeding
advancement of this I-D, because of an external dependency that appears
unlikely to be resolved in a timely fashion, is making the perfect the
enemy of the good.  This group has much accomplish in a time frame quite
possibly measured in years and that work can and should be done in parallel
to competing IETF equities.  The stated risk, as I understand it, appears
small as it is constrained by the experiment and resolvable in future
drafts (and implementations).


On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:49 PM Scott Kitterman <> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:39:09 PM EST Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > I support publishing the I-D as confirmed in the WGLC with (perhaps) some
> > additional caveats regarding the ephemerality of the Experiment as deemed
> > necessary by the chairs.
> >
> > Given the expected duration of the experiment (at least a year to collect
> > some useful data, if not 2-3 years), I also support unblocking the other
> > work in this WG since we ought not wait for this experiment to "conclude"
> > (whatever that means) before proceeding on other work items.
> I don't see any reason the other WG items can't proceed in parallel with
> the
> experiment.  I believe the changes to DMARC to bring it to IETF standards,
> particularly the need for an alternative to the PSL, will take significant
> effort to achieve.  As a result, I think there's little risk that results
> from
> the experiment will end up being a critical path item for any WG effort.
> Scott K
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list