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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 20:44 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 4BEBF12012E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:44:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] 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=u3HHX/ME; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=A8PdJMdE
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 Cvg_oGv3HvwI for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E28AF12011A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:44:01 -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 43E33F80308 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:44:01 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1580849041; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=g21Ws4AcKRy1oMCcLjtu+vFpts9O6DlNA0jfh2tPp9I=; b=u3HHX/MEACp87ETvyAYYjJGHB2zRId0jEhe65GiHfeoViHSG3e7tfaPY LlT4UZeO8i1OA3ieKstWxEYC2pCvDg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1580849041; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=g21Ws4AcKRy1oMCcLjtu+vFpts9O6DlNA0jfh2tPp9I=; b=A8PdJMdESP45OKXrMdyYFQBVjIcvBYaWopHb/fQukcamkKKF+Wr8a/ik MQtO/AA0xTPbhaUyOqoL6cOfRjo2EfUbg/8QQpX43JNO1N4Qs3SW9KfoWV BsrogNQUe1Dv3U0/tTHUPMIYJSda6TbTRa3LlLP0qpNz35CA0WUGIrs+vt kYv6T6ZcUhSniV6Q6tdd1w6FIw4QYowwlBISAYhikPQBq7Jwzh5dPLvPfp nWfvhubqAZ3RTWclXOm6dOz8pDVxFa7tZNdEDxcmg+4DEfzCLmiNlPBb0w rTpBo7FnWHjuHkHJ4o/n8FIX9Cmu1sVCnKbTlhRUErjhdG8TfNDY5g==
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 12C1EF801EA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:44:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:44:00 -0500
Message-ID: <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYe4MKmCuFXhshzek97ABeHk1YzZCJof8EPKZSGJzJUzOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY-v-VS-Wai-aqGRPOj1i8HxqMrYybzsNJGzN2dTHvG9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYe4MKmCuFXhshzek97ABeHk1YzZCJof8EPKZSGJzJUzOw@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/jcbz6CRx0iyWxQlvnvSHcahv8zQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on 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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:44:03 -0000

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 3:25:06 PM EST Dotzero wrote:
> I am not against experiments, but having reread the entire thread starting
> from Dave's post in August, I believe his concerns are valid. My question
> to the chairs and the group as a whole is whether an experiment can be
> constructed that is valid and useful without "comingling" PSD issues and
> concerns with the core of DMARC at scale? That is, the group that is
> seriously interested does their experiment amongst themselves to produce
> data that supports and justifies such changes in the wild.

I think the draft as written works as you suggest.  I think Dave's concerns 
are really about DMARC (or at least 99.6% about DMARC) and not significantly 
related to this addition.  As designed, the experiment is self-contained:

For senders, it only affects PSDs that have been listed as participants.

For receivers, it only affects receivers that choose to deploy code to do the 
additional check related to PSD DMARC.

As far as I can determine, there is zero impact on anyone else.

We have running code.  I'll leave it to the chairs to evaluate the consensus.

Scott K