Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #113 - DMARCbis -01 Introduction Section

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 04 June 2021 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2083A209B for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdKiifVZ3c-b for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CFB13A1FA3 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k22-20020a17090aef16b0290163512accedso4254989pjz.0 for <>; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 17:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=tlXtCfuD0jLj8+wVBxb0JaYmKyeUj3DPSsU9tH2sqgE=; b=TztKDBbTFNrw7veDempc7FTv9TszdJAmvK9PLYG3WtTGottVMfmBLj9MTGlcV92PQp I0tVvmrqIT2nNy7qxfFa23e1sE6gS+3cFYLfZC/8NUA0P4glyZ6sZ5yysUXM/LfKz+/A xnARUwhAv+pKTrg7xOdQCm/klguOZnyyz0NSaxodQ0Zou/rngra34tKEEE4y2uH8Qk2r joByhMuxLPnzB5nXWlqzp7ty2If0L4wCbLSvjDWY4sPLMk28M+Q12DnBRyZq+ft4dWug G1Cb4wbzqkku36s9FsVMJzPp605ZHHzPsxMuuddSEXvUOUpOl94WIVogKu9C6FNYZ4c7 0iWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=tlXtCfuD0jLj8+wVBxb0JaYmKyeUj3DPSsU9tH2sqgE=; b=JTkT+tDCqFcEARNTR7/nBekmfaQtnkp/uxqC8/r2wztTn1UOA0Mtt65IncpmkQJbb8 4u7pvOuxrqRHlgeXAPp7gibTCUSD7VZvIntYJZu+kkWaabWUwpiD3IgobezcxH/9SosB KdCdsa9UJtJvo6fChMpptKpCwsPu1sDPVeQm3/+wS9USzhb0nZu8U8JwRI7Ap2A3UldD 9VIb3dcfoOS5YeWDZ2Gf27okMICFquEg7PPqESCrsKPdCcf+t3v4ZejE5sKR/ZQmE5Gi hd545navGbBRjmkmIftRL45VQWh9x4/6mJTGWRe3UYaPgHDtSaiIh/xWbHmu+a3hu/fR WDmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ua98k+4MALAWweaKPeCfY/gb6accnXrJohKtJyj/hpiDK998v Est2D+LRjG4By0BO4jSLSYYS9n3EzYqV0A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVFrSz19GXVozbMBuDLg2s+w7/lXRyiXJisd6P7u8vJ2Up205nzPS0g8TeMBRtWW32/wMDWA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4a8a:: with SMTP id lp10mr1955189pjb.121.1622766439429; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 17:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x1sm2978561pjk.37.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Jun 2021 17:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Todd Herr <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
References: <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:27:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C2FCBCE09FB8378294339A69"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #113 - DMARCbis -01 Introduction Section
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: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 00:27:28 -0000

On 5/5/2021 11:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
> We would like to achieve rough consensus on this section of text by 
> Friday, May 21.

Apologies.  I've only just been able to review this text. Attached are 
suggested changes, done as a Word document with revision tracking turned on.

It might appear that the edits effect major substance changes to the 
Introduction, but I believe they do not; the intent was to retain the 
same goals for the Introduction.

Changes were driven by:

  * Providing better lead-in for readers with less background on the
    document's topic
  * Eliminating detail that is not need in an introduction
  * Minimizing PSO text, since I belive the covered domains have Domain
    Owners whether they are PSOs or not; hence the fact of being a PSO
    has minimal import in the Introduction
  * General wordsmithing, to tighten things up


Dave Crocker

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross