Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Mon, 22 February 2021 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@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 0FA033A1C98 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:49:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 an7M_L-MtuvX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92f.google.com (mail-ua1-x92f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92f]) (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 677463A1D2F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92f.google.com with SMTP id o31so4482737uae.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:49:27 -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; bh=/Zgdx0iBbaHN7B1b2DUiLDmc5dJQH6Xuill16MGA1Tg=; b=qYX2vWj1Na3pLISgOZKA2NrePYxP4VjERke05j6OSMAapgNBX8nvIqCkA3N3WIQpcJ W9ZjKFmbb5V8C4mxoVDrxs1R56YLwkoJAItHE/tUAh9qmCI6TQ59QlSu3InMyieJn0mO SPTsTnDxOCBoSGqCg+eBJM558KIrog1F4iEuC4A8HDp58AQOOxpRsDUIPIYeMJGvj2K2 9xRY+pWoBZclnPtyHHGMwbjLt+SphS24tMWVMw7pIG3THym7zAo57+t6vrK99eFxSTEr Rl5dz3dbjJGUyH/eVX/fSL5qkIRkFYpS6AGdJTg3kLKeM6O2qs4CrWzpKpAsiHzOHMw2 ooog==
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; bh=/Zgdx0iBbaHN7B1b2DUiLDmc5dJQH6Xuill16MGA1Tg=; b=WXMoFZcyFqBPPwsKTs/vrsN1znf7hMekiKiyt4M4LjiRKUhlaFw9iD+hmnF/S6936E z3o1z544gp28XEzUB0ffnwAu9V255qHENKLJfoKHCpYbu7teeUeyaoUsi5ESOc7wskhO 5iQg5n2UdCEimaQsNOnJ3mcmBB7P/Jx6dg5AB8/hxxTkAa2DqaQpZ18bMFuibB75KNYi Af4j7NbOV/m3iOKUHFlMoXAk1bvjTJTIEmHvG0P1x9EbtmbozAH6FKKei3bgVUVEgiWe k3LQ3nXAM19dy9TPHpbck7+lgMI4yuD7aweGqQQc4sfHAlevoy4OMzhK68Fj9wsl5MFL t2YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533AtzH5NgdzdMUYwm/FE4wE8iTs/3YnlZYY2b4WA+OOJW+b/647 oGI97vchjUOJhdfoq8csbKbTABXJQ7rOoyfIaipO4C1N
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCcHFI8WmiJynL2nMsydplK8caSwcuLxyaYKmjz538sxa7BCbhE/pCG/mncxyc01Mddtijah+0/A6kwp9M/aY=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5e6:: with SMTP id e93mr13868835uae.109.1614008966162; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:49:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161144436332.13490.10651420808048876097@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADyWQ+EhD0nz71dLtUFwb9V_6uuen-k6E5fpvrCg3ZYzfr2JSw@mail.gmail.com> <ba38a9e4-7f43-c747-2d90-f35de22a8399@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZJaEBrXdE9JOZNOJAgR7iEzfMA86Csi2sNtE5JC7ROUQ@mail.gmail.com> <c5cd9239-b204-255a-48a3-1cdccf18464a@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYrcg__sewPO+EWfJf-5uoHcnQpFqtw-QoXxngHTJvkAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDCeFQU9RTN6osPTrMpap-Djkx5+Czx=-nKqVeXnyEy1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZXkRMLXS7mt28-vEKKk4HgWkP98P8kdYaS1XbcYQvSxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLVGhaBhrmDSYayYrcU9JSq_pY6D8=KoirUGCrOeKeHCQ@mail.gmail.com> <2e2b6204-244d-dd6f-dced-e4318562710c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2e2b6204-244d-dd6f-dced-e4318562710c@gmail.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 10:49:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfwzBHQz7x95nFOnr69gXXAUjKhxkgC+1WN97=i535_s0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017ad8205bbeebf65"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/sqJBOItOcRmV-YQ39eFGRGbWw-g>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:49:29 -0000

So what is the best nomenclature for referring to the "ICANN-authorized
registries"?   Dave's phrase or something else?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:26 AM Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what
> all those terms mean and
> >>> how they are all related.
>
> yes. But it's worse than that.  The current language is not
> automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS
> administration.
>
> As is being noted, I too think a great deal of the problem is
> over-reliance on the word register.
>
> It is being used as if it explains a basic difference in administrative
> roles.  It doesn't.  Not even close.
>
>
> >> To work with the example you gave here, I agree that "facebook.com" is
> registered (under "com"), but
> >> disagree that "www.facebook.com" is registered at all;
> > Right, of course it's not.
>
> I disagree.  Strongly.  The fact that one registration is internal and
> another is through a third-party, semi-regulated service does not make a
> difference, for the use of that word.
>
> I work with an organization that has an IT department that is just as
> formal typical ICANN-authorized registries.  To get a sub-domain is a
> Very Big Deal.  Don't think for a moment that it is fundamentally
> different than interacting with the TLD registeries.
>
>
> > I didn't say that it is: I said that
> > people who don't fully understand this stuff *think* it is, and that's
> > the part that the text isn't making clear.
> >
> >> To my mind, "register" involves a specific transaction, sometimes
> involving money, with whoever gates
> >> access to make those delegations.
>
> How much do you pay to register to vote?
>
> However the rest of the above statement is correct.  A transaction to
> record gain access to a resource or to reserve access to it.
>
> Registration is a process of signing up.  That's all.  And it says
> nothing about the role or relationship of the entity the registration is
> with.
>
>
>
> d/
>
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> dcrocker@gmail.com
> 408.329.0791
>
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> American Red Cross
> dave.crocker2@redcross.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>