Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt

Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> Thu, 17 January 2019 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 03C7112958B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:41:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 qnNcJYFblu9J for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:41:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x134.google.com (mail-it1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (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 EA1DB1271FF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x134.google.com with SMTP id z7so3584488iti.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:41:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jp5YVO+6ROXKEf1Cl0cX+DWffOktdYURWj4M121h6Qc=; b=Frh4t/3v6QnX+UjZqlfoOCLgmDro2+mkyzjp1xG6NqdBL6Pjbi/gxyfgm6Qp9X4/6g wj5yUqbj3SnqwrcIlVT4OgINNetf1UHom4j09HF4DLv5kfeVscDH83JrkZR3CFfByEiI Apqg1MoGBtkdm3FJWijR/5hvxf4sc9wLDOGnQ=
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=jp5YVO+6ROXKEf1Cl0cX+DWffOktdYURWj4M121h6Qc=; b=VYTBTzMYzOpqpZK4JVhLmzgj6a0kR/zUOOtZTy+zPA3kXbnnmN2xlhWV7/DrhWoUzv Wqgb698z/8GOswwa1sdmRQu3rY1i4VqAsIhdE8y73Njbsu4l9qR/P3rdYKcpDu8jk1Mk nupyVx6FcgW/X/qimrjC9u306ijCNFR9Cttn72RBg+vU/LHWANYDQfOI/3rc70RQ26P+ 6e5KDbLEpj04nXAOA3+BaiTBH1dIM4q3CuG2iEkBtZ/KOTcHuotbcPXfSkBGKDqeIldq CxNkO/+4yt+PCJVYN/mf+W86P7mo0L0TtCJ1dxv8ZssxTmNR1s/DSqd1cW1Rq2P2d3O1 jekA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcwRlSSnIMyIaTblOxBzDEQ4CoKugXfJcixnYKFIfg41ssvemqQ zuPOz+Rep60qHGX2rp4vT3QapZvBKw9NQTwsDmO7tyBY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6K8hwLjv9uPulDgDbUBR6Hz6ujIcXnxt/7vnWx32vbtBF6mXAZec2Ia72zA7C5FCHdebNbSh2a/hKbjnCFTYY=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:818c:: with SMTP id n12mr8825905jag.108.1547757669089; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:41:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3104294.rU99Ex2XNH@kitterma-e6430> <20190117185019.16153200CDA113@ary.qy> <CAD2i3WOV16Hh5qLg9Dp3Kvroi-S+5UOzDWkX=ZBR9vRPTkyuww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD2i3WOV16Hh5qLg9Dp3Kvroi-S+5UOzDWkX=ZBR9vRPTkyuww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:40:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CABuGu1pPRj963z_6acyPHVwGHzSF0Gg=hhA3EqVFxEaLP+mYKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000109e59057fad6add"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/sTj4I7fsDu2KdqwVooqjv9Pxkpw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt
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, 17 Jan 2019 20:41:13 -0000

What is the difference between a PS vs a PSD in your statement? For the DNS
a record is a record is a record.

--Kurt

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 11:26 Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:50 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there's any way to get the PSL to tag vanity TLDs.
>>
>
> I believe a single list is the best long term solution. It just needs the
> domain and two flags, one for if the domain is a public suffix, and the
> other is if its a public suffix domain (per this draft).
>
> For instance;
>
> domain          | PS | PSD
> ---------------------------------
> .co.uk           | true | false
> .gov.uk          | true | true
> .brand           | false | true
>
> This seems to adequately cover all uses cases described (with the .co.uk
> example being the state of everything currently on the PSL), is simple, and
> in one place.
>
> I think the primary question (before we go down the PSL/Mozilla rabbit
> hole) is what the proper technical solution is - one list, multiple lists,
> no list.
>
> After clarity on that, then we can dig into how and where this thing lives.
>
> Seth
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>