IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 29 January 2021 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 050823A1258 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:03:48 -0800 (PST)
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, 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 qv9_g-ongGcr for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:03:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x931.google.com (mail-ua1-x931.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::931]) (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 3201C3A129C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x931.google.com with SMTP id k47so3592485uad.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:03:27 -0800 (PST)
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=Kp58T9K2hsEmuYanVCAEavzOwkEwKATZoNrNz1iW2Pk=; b=E2abmkDC2FgxUTyUcQ17z3Aa4AMaPJyTWvJLJGuHSLGoO5S5NhC6YWmIKF9XbZSIx4 wd0p6qgbDtBitKUSbCgGnqNZylDlA4ZOU8GOb8cTVGNM7Gc41vvEvEahabtGQkmClL7Q EJajW87tZJwHLn97V/oN90WandNhr583sd686yaG3zFPbHwYaKuno0NgG605kDpegCE5 RrCPblk983xm8oPJheD2g8p2Bp3gasGuSRkjZdYg3+d7DUWp1XQONQ8BwsdnNDOhiS+w lm/UMQz9iaLdtkEEkS/joRLLz/kpCN9FWuRKFDn6+/NtpvKi/y/iMn4z16SyioHo4IUJ H5bQ==
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=Kp58T9K2hsEmuYanVCAEavzOwkEwKATZoNrNz1iW2Pk=; b=PFiheref46DJWCc9cc7i4F0WxHycPGaIvPrwYHDdCZPaIh+h14PkXz4CwJRh95t1yd UWjtC+DYY+O0DYuoipuudGIKuCnyTzJyXcEIeiqirKCuWHkf14Fy2D+8voapS4YIGTdS VkYelzJBoKzTh/ZzaOcVd2xEqrmN/iLlkXDQETQKuoBgf/m+i7TeCS8F9XG7Jy5pSQOf PQIaGgJes4iWolTJttbWGF86l+JsokBbzMtEzUWZOOumKBikRorJVrKNujM4WUXgv0QW C78oDevauHQ98YSVe88UrrAI5M9iLpWWGOYHJA1OKe6+Xjku3gmuY2wnHfiDvSD60mxn /AHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MiHKd1uEoHotHJsIw4g5ERaAxX5JR9TKyTGhuj1kHsFcHGKdS Nzgyps7FI6gIFvLGhN8ArqFXU0YtGhv6DswHqcU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZvSMWQAqBS2WpUC4AAz5XL9RRTEcXlGyedJI053WdfkRwSYDgqC4AfXbvZB3/2lnwZ1TGv5cQAGwObtRbOQY=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2a1a:: with SMTP id o26mr4030765uar.101.1611950605961; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:03:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+Fb93SkiAnL4cuCfxC5Wi1ERLeKhguWqAp3j8YEa6JBSA@mail.gmail.com> <87ima4wu3s.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL0qLwbiOrgsEjZU_V6W8e42SRNoUh7CzyngRMR5RLeQpzrxaQ@mail.gmail.com> <44eec884-a3c7-f0e3-4545-1032369ad3fd@tana.it> <CAL0qLwavpE9r6+O+Dm5EyDYzP9_pTpTbbjMzL1mPTyJky5CKmA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Hn5G_WSHjrD3gLL5HwZxDGoV_wxgAuiPc_sutQ4OYhNg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1oxkNUB_E8Q5do5xCruxXGvqY2461u0ZMZ1J5BFE8dTqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwb9RUBTTfwNNLn+do1iNE-A1Ke-NcW+SidqhJqd3BdPig@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1qLPkVQFDxUKXsgzqoK4Qcd7Rn5Q4bOed_4WkVv-FuB7w@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+FejAGbv8TLrGXpV_Crgi1KErKK_1-6=2jzZh+QbguK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYrXEaOVphUjAB1guQO=s+ppabP1q4Ne16rqF=e6JsqLw@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Fx-jVGGgzf6-R6n1OzpwQR3akFJeVNqmq=XN_X=1B-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1qj0Q5M9bbeUvxRb2ubSKZea+sPd-2Jv+8uYf2VaVfwhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qj0Q5M9bbeUvxRb2ubSKZea+sPd-2Jv+8uYf2VaVfwhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:03:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZwf+9sK_+cyaYd4eDuv9OpU9tJ+vBJjLs7oorf3yQOFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000438baf05ba0f7f13"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qRW3h2JLrmFeLP6Sdl_mfOQO5dM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 20:03:48 -0000

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:21 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 6:52 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I suggest adding it to this paragraph:
>>
>>    This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC and PSL
>>    algorithm cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.
>>
>
> update to DMARC = yes; update to PSL = no
>

Why?


>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:44 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:01 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since this is an experiment, Appendix A discusses the updates that
>>>> happen.  we don't actually say explicitly "if the experiment is a success,
>>>> the following changes will be made" and perhaps I should add some wording
>>>> like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Something like this, perhaps?
>>>
>>> "A standards track update to [RFC7489] will take into account the
>>> results of this experiment."
>>>
>>> ... somewhere in Section 1.
>>>
>>
> A normative dependency from an experimental spec imposed upon a standards
> track spec seems like a bad idea to me. At the very least it would impose a
> timing constraint that DMARCbis could not be "completed" until after the
> PSD experiment is "completed", analyzed and consensus achieved.
>

I thought that was exactly the intent here.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email