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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Tue, 04 February 2020 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F166E120033 for <>; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 19:08:21 -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 06JB6_EktUuY for <>; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 19:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5238912002F for <>; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 19:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 80so3326164uah.9 for <>; Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:08:20 -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=x7fra/XXfMFe0wnH8Y3f/79LsZrlRTgw3PfuFvBQIZU=; b=CsKvB54Dzg9Z7ZqBHYgPJ0cM4NSFXoat4OQm31ERu16Q2MiMl71WClvTjTxiRBBJ3V jQEE/FHG052mIT2neqZBR2S+WTqBZ0WLqQrUaxY5jAeE8Gbkg8FM0N7NsdOPecmnVDAh 7W8+xExgmBPswkr8whQd7P49vT2l+RXF6Irp0A0YWYl5IlD638NZmUPY9/saZ0N0TiWl O2RrddYXyquU9TOhgG/p4jwtERRl7Meae7ssglmQQoi4a3hGfLZ5jJxKL8S3/m87z9hU jPpvGOVDbSY+ORmz06afogdmZ1aSLpGf/ja/IvGqVK7D9rZM8ryCX32ZJNzyS94+jj8M 2duA==
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=x7fra/XXfMFe0wnH8Y3f/79LsZrlRTgw3PfuFvBQIZU=; b=Utbtpv4DPXPoF4tbQZEOmTTUKRaT8J9AIbjQSlfk7aZIODMLosdPNtk9ZHoziULBpT ppOJ1Qa5GoCByfaUrew3yMgmMyke6C8pXGDz2DvnhQHsO76cWaYeaj9BIOJfdIgy3tF7 F+sq56CrWkt/tHBfIjmlZtqSENcRNbrBQzrOChvWafq9W3KlbOnHCdkBQyhoVne5ndYy yLT3WoWxucFhzDaohLTNdlmt7KBxeOO7QR06x77jkxlqGeUMhZe5XntPy6usvQJScmfd XgmSJ9D6Ne1m5nl3TVUk2fOX0fYJGWl9M8AuUZCOgJVxlDngRncztQGC5Jxkx0O11zCy DgXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWgFRFMUkdp6Eop9y7FmY+OkjMb5HzdfuUICv0laFjFvtRpnQ06 tIs0IhZ4O33+IBzSUJEfcPasF8Uzt8FbswW9Ixw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx5WFwZm+6Kt1vuC1/5sz553OMYNe+lC/Cdmdc+0qySAjE8/YPSqrQWmt+cibsPSELEs2hik6Rsa4TPO3boJic=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:63cb:: with SMTP id i11mr7844614uap.87.1580785699285; Mon, 03 Feb 2020 19:08:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 19:08:06 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Craig Schwartz <>
Cc: Dave Crocker <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Alexey Melnikov <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000127366059db75a60"
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 03:08:22 -0000

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Craig Schwartz <> 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.


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.