[dmarc-ietf] PSD DMARC: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd post-WGLC Status

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 28 September 2019 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00AA7120025 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
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, 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=rNUqbHUC; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=r/j2XE5N
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JnFkQ0ZCsxi for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F33712009E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com []) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4077CF8020C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1569706718; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=ImFCH6VRykiXaufr0YXeVu1eELadNBTEjGRcFgDXJew=; b=rNUqbHUCUc84doDrPoc9v8T5q3k5LOwyScUyoiAYKSqYX3VgrR5lbzI1 tc80TinljJqJ8jEZkBjqs4uEDZgZAQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1569706718; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=ImFCH6VRykiXaufr0YXeVu1eELadNBTEjGRcFgDXJew=; b=r/j2XE5NqC8pGCIJzkAtdeUiYstG2F4n+S18gVhbN4YP8+vmI/zF6LiK h6IOTUil4iUokAA2tf6VAymZHbxaGZrVwyqKVNIUj7+jmHKN4J5Ow+Zwcm DwlL6uGvHacTGH3jjFf9QFFDyqWNGnUHhOThKJ9taWsly3NjlU2egGflcc EhZBFH1XK5xtHtHwlGb5VM7L9vRjBHxAVWbXYf3pMXd6ONe0uwSPJd2//j PGbjta8aznEAcC+osEzaHmP2xlDqqRYBGEcVXnP+fasvWR9ZHOuI3bx1JS X3T9ERO2PepohDjlRis8Q960vSczjPhNRM/QTJYbKkDbxq/wrkELiA==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net []) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03625F8020B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:38:37 -0400
Message-ID: <2080369.Hr1xgu6sVx@l5580>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/jss1-WIDhpmVsv2w1L32lKF4RSc>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] PSD DMARC: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd post-WGLC Status
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, 28 Sep 2019 21:38:41 -0000

WGLC started on 2019-06-26.  It ended 2019-07-17.

2019-06-26: WG Secretary called for additional discussion on three topics:

1. What further context is needed in the introduction
2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to implement are 
3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only NXDOMAINs

By the end of the WGLC period, after a slow start, there was a vigorous 
discussion on all these issues and (with a few days post-WGLC for the np= tag 
discussion to finish) moved towards what was in my judgment a reasonably solid 
consensus.  All issues that people brought up were addressed by the WG 
(including inclusion of some recommended editorial changes made before WGLC 
that hadn't made it into the draft).

A new revision addressing the WGLC discussion (-05) and document shepherd 
comments was uploaded 2019-07-27. 

Post WGLC discussion:

2019-07-22: A question was brought up if the draft should include hard 
requirements to forbid mail from non-existent domains.  The WG concluded that 
independent of the wisdom of such a rule, it was out of scope for the WG.

2019-07-27:  A set of editorial nits were provided against -05.

2019-07-31: Additional document shepherd feedback based on revisions provided 
in -05 and earlier comments.

2019-08-09: New revision (-06) published fixing editorial nits and 
incorporating additional changes based on document shepherd feedback.

2019-08-10: Comments on -06 from Alessandro Vesely, but no suggested changes.

2019-08-13: Comments on the general PSD DMARC concept from Dave Crocker.

2019-09-03: WG Chair feedback on 2019-08-13 comments, some discussion ensues.

2019-09-09: Discussion concludes.  It appears to me that the upshot of the 
discussion is that the Section 2.3 Longest PSD definition needs to be updated.  
All other issues have been addressed.

2019-09-24: Alessandro Vesely reports having implemented PSD DMARC in 
zdkimfilter for Courier MTA using an alternative data format for PSD DMARC 
participants based on the PSL format.

Based on the post-WGLC discussion, I believe an updated draft before IETF last 
call is appropriate with three changes:

1.  Updated Longest PSD definition:

> 2.3.  Longest PSD
>    The longest PSD is the Organizational Domain with one label removed.

2.  Addition of the PSL data format to Appendix B (it would be B.3).  I 
haven't drafted text yet, but I don't expect it to be controverisial.

3.  Add zdkimfilter to Appendix C (also didn't make text yet).

Unless someone tells me otherwise, I plan to go ahead with those changes.

Scott K