Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

Craig Schwartz <> Tue, 06 November 2018 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D834127332 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:03:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fVkTKv_61zhN for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:03:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 006EE126CC7 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n21so1909521qtl.6 for <>; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:03:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=wMMXOq49dyI7OZO/mJYnGgI5+RXzVcFt1kU3kepLQGo=; b=BuR6yV6vhs42XyTj0/wpKdEDoIybV39T7x08TQb2Cu073BlySPuwZIePQMrHWLEM/4 1r6ynshipNqg9H7vYhpnhp0WkSTwvJHUxfeYFBeIamnLTFgjdpK83dyzWI4OkMsnFzBw PhmstH7MEYBDBroh6Fz9OV2E2O3AVzKqoLRg8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=wMMXOq49dyI7OZO/mJYnGgI5+RXzVcFt1kU3kepLQGo=; b=U9+IKThSSAo/YGKHBrFZrhZEjjHiH0jI+s+3ImMkUwmfNsWP5axtfd2gwoTAYCNDb0 itYfMKGvhtvO1ZF8mGQ8TGWzmFXcDGg7agIE/JCz/vm9quizXO8q9JmogA/gYhz1JgGK yxNiD9QCZj2BYLpwyE9dUbRK7Ggx2VeVVuZIJZPc3aXkW0Wx/z9GT/9k2E6ETM0GKwll gEp7pVfKRlsEfaY5gd5M7Ki0SwD8ivZEYO229jL0lL9nQfyADDnYEY0Y4naCruCxS+ZZ 7VWLxTYYNVGvZsLstgUWiUzBN8KhBL43ORTKYKIC98zXk1697sFKlNtLkJZkjDWwmVD2 TCUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJhpbBV2xiCpA0qG1BcdFsX34c40JEl8nXCvNpTjnKL8LpgBYtS getVcoy9XJESI34bFnrkjVftb/EY6xI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fE9GVWNs8jrD+ISa/eV53wDIy/FOJi/gsK5E0uVDTbojrBPb0oWHhagr3R90SuNK1PYt0DGQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2a26:: with SMTP id k35mr7413590qtk.245.1541541784182; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CSCHWARSP4102 ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v5-v6sm24682986qkc.75.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:03:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Schwartz <>
X-Google-Original-From: "Craig Schwartz" <>
To: "'Alessandro Vesely'" <>, <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:03:01 -0500
Message-ID: <00b401d4761c$7cfec420$76fc4c60$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLkDRPTIxC10FcK+f4Vyd705D0f0gIR+1GOA4QaK0Gi92x9sA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items
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, 06 Nov 2018 22:03:09 -0000

>>BTW, I see
but neither .bank nor .insurance.<<

The reason for this is that is effectively a second-level domain name
and its administrator has a DMARC policy. DMARC at the top-level (e.g.,
.BANK, .INSURANCE) doesn't currently exist hence the rationale for the
proposed work.  

Craig Schwartz
Managing Director
fTLD Registry Services | .BANK & .INSURANCE

-----Original Message-----
From: dmarc <> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

On Mon 05/Nov/2018 07:23:08 +0100 Barry Leiba wrote:

>> I'd like to recommend that we (DMARC-WG) accept 
>> into our work queue. It aligns with our charter already.
> I've seen three agreements and no objections, so here's an official 
> call for objections.  If there are none by 16 November, we will create
> draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-00 as a new working group item.

Can we have a brief discussion on what exactly is the purpose of the I-D?

At a first glance, it seems an attempt to override the Public Suffix List
with a IANA registry.  The PSL is based on IANA root zones, taking into
account PSO policies.  So, we're requiring PSOs to register their email
policies at IANA, while their web policies will continue to be "registered"
at PSL.  Does that sound somewhat curious or is it me?

BTW, I see
but neither .bank nor .insurance.


dmarc mailing list