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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 27 February 2020 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 0C7183A0A69 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 04:16:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 xOjPeH2y56Z4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 04:16:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E51EC3A0A65 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 04:16:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1582805793; bh=sE3e+fA5QucUz7uGXQhQsyqhunku7dpJ7Pu52JQiv6o=; l=868; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=A0pUO2/Qk7atrF/lFYZ8XfFTk/22FGN2JEijAVmqZZP5zBv89XCspBvNSjUcIVdAc Z/g+gWfZmXx6FR98xtQ5+z5filGUrClj0b7G5tmNlrvgfheHuqLmmjCzJg5pL3V47A hOVF1gvApiBq3Kok5w0Pl32XEo3l5A+m5A8NTS6/xatCtf9PW5DYMfz5pDkJi
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC02F.000000005E57B321.0000164A; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:16:33 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbp2hNrgF_xxhKRRODQ6HP=U5_K-r3Wtm1wJZOZcKup3g@mail.gmail.com> <9DE9E7DC-FE60-4952-8595-B2D087A6B780@kitterman.com> <CADyWQ+GSP0K=Ci22ouE6AvdqCDGgUAg3jZHBOg3EwCmw=QG84A@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1obn55Y2=CuEYRYCEO3TYYNhYTsdkesQ67O61jRyfO=wA@mail.gmail.com> <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net> <CAL0qLwZnomZJTbFB=dfFdw2vWg7B0ObRuoage3pcWaYmP9Kp4A@mail.gmail.com> <082f2102-693c-136d-874c-1182f12a6818@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZjd2qhejctNK0BM7j=SscaE45Mm7U9iWJNvO-GuhEKQA@mail.gmail.com> <1aa141c4-50d8-4f2e-c72f-e1d0bf19f280@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY-v-VS-Wai-aqGRPOj1i8HxqMrYybzsNJGzN2dTHvG9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ+U=1qw63VGCEXAqA7AhL_GpidwcWBuLV-aAeJgvcTagi8=dA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZobYEj7nmj0B5vHH5ED+BBv2uocGPVRSN-S0-xFzL68w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ+U=1o4qchsgm9ei3=WuW5qWOPOzdY8ox83rM23b1UZLc=Z0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZaNS-J5WSAmqh1DcwNKNXFo+9udt_SiUUqWNdVFxCnOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <281fcc15-049c-b586-8514-0322cd0578c6@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:16:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZaNS-J5WSAmqh1DcwNKNXFo+9udt_SiUUqWNdVFxCnOw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/nFBuUGqot0SUe4xaBtQbWxhOmUQ>
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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:16:36 -0000

On Thu 27/Feb/2020 06:30:59 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last Call on the
> PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection, we should 
> proceed toward publication.

Great!


> I will put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem by
> switching the document to Informational status, and can the working group
> accept that outcome?

IMHO, experimental is appropriate.  There are three competing methods; maybe it
will be worth to maintain all of them indefinitely, maybe some of them will
turn out to be impractical or not used.  That's the experimental question.  The
sooner we run it the sooner the response.

If publishing as experimental would further delay publication, I'd accept
informational.  However, I don't understand why.


jm2c
Ale
--