Re: [dmarc-ietf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT)

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 10 May 2021 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 04C233A29C8; Mon, 10 May 2021 13:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 iO6TqASfW2le; Mon, 10 May 2021 13:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 986D03A29C7; Mon, 10 May 2021 13:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id y9so22392927ljn.6; Mon, 10 May 2021 13:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HErtne2/Nq3z0GOwFyarnDHwY1p+Gb78Sg2QcbPW3xc=; b=h1uqZFw0aDl4MjYe52Wkbx3E7SlExO1hesvasgQBToF1Ti9vMKzFMCjE8Y6a68sXRK COKla6OzXFIOpXD/xKxztwLAU7ZnzbgL/Y3wyIxr72S1nnyP2cOly3cAYuYC8vu7Imdv 91VLjiIuT1LafB7Yg74KUJdh4BPA2ZT3pb1HIVRGaiNZq/RmvbxfTYHnBSSE6xU7d2k7 ftQlkFGdW+uR6XcDxKOziDWY/uN5KXuiW3mg7sLNM8aTFZK9ZQTzJ2H/36r0Dc2eYuzq Xj1HqgufIaLdWzsAmxTuwEs7HpyBcJsug6OrVmrj7DP14RY2nSE4xiUyZ085ZFaQWSY3 SUlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HErtne2/Nq3z0GOwFyarnDHwY1p+Gb78Sg2QcbPW3xc=; b=QnARu/A28WbSPyQ+J44TIEj+BM3iDB1OdTWE2EJYrXcZUYlpyLm7hmAyhrYA6MomC9 yATX3DwLl8BvVQmV72ujwvPfefWKwzAKvAXIWKQi0X6Jn8Y08DKPFlvMGhORlK1uBayI ZtvCNAyO6HfohpX6sMrnNDtYlItPgmuTR31CaRIdjyJWDxPsVV2TO/YjdOcSROfw/P8t gHhTlOXtnzNsLZRxNxfYwB/qVovhKh7cWxsRyWayAQje/TZqzpJsXbQrGWrG+4RsL8F2 Dni8uPCdF8sBU55XUxLw825CawljMZDVcJLYUHMC1e355baM2jwkFUvZpe3dj1Tf5ksH JI0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530eFkY2JCJ4djwALeF151OUAYAKtGuW7hyTvcGsJocyo0/QzcB4 c10DMFga3VdpA/t4ZoGB15UtahmwJyXFiPz0w7I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVcC2KsurG+fDRU1kJvGl+wy/PdZpzLQw0+D82MQU/r3c7EHpuIGh7BFCypo/OC+sZQW6EjpxsreryHMRWB7I=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8997:: with SMTP id c23mr20658001lji.240.1620678051183; Mon, 10 May 2021 13:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161903750425.31807.342722356317203484@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <161903750425.31807.342722356317203484@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 16:20:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+FMeHMGV5XkcntXAGTVbYpeteFq4oR_t5szNBXUbLdBFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dmarc-psd@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000089406605c1ff834a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/oIiXGP1ImLZ8ggXA4NgMJDBUvDE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 10 May 2021 20:20:59 -0000

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:38 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to Sandra Murphy for the SECDIR review.  Please review those
> proposed
> clarifying edits.
>

Thanks. I believe we've gone over all of them.




>
> ** Section 4.1
> Due to the inherent Privacy and Security risks associated with PSD
>    DMARC for Organizational Domains in multi-organization PSDs that do
>    not particpate in DMARC, any Feedback Reporting related to multi-
>    organizational PSDs MUST be limited to non-existent domains except in
>    cases where the reporter knows that PSO requires use of DMARC.
>
> Is there any guidance on how the reporter might know “that [the] PSO
> requires
> use of DMARC”.
>

In the above paragraphs in this section, it defines Multi-organization
PSDs that require DMARC usage and Multi-organization PSDs that do not
require DMARC usage.
Any Advice?



>
> ** Section B.2.
> -- Please define the semantics of the “status” column and the
> expected/possible
> values
>

This is defined in RFC7489, Section 11.4.  I added the following text:
    The "Status" column is defined in <xref target="RFC7489"/>Section 11.4.



> -- Reconcile the differences between the initial values noted in this this
> document and those at http://psddmarc.org/registry.html: o the text in
> this
> section says “current” for the status column, but the html page has same
> values
> as set to “active”
>
> o the PSD names in the initial values of this document are of the form
> “.*”,
> but the html page has no leading dot (i.e., “.bank” vs. “bank”)
>
>
Thanks, I've reached out to have this corrected


tim