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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 17 January 2019 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 A1B9C130E72 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:50:22 -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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=F69AeyUX; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=GZTZT+gj
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 ib1earfhNBHU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:50:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8C891288BD for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 14430 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2019 18:50:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=385b.5c40ce6b.k1901; bh=DVFEqCQSqF1QrxKAQ2tCMgzIpd5CONl/6+jm1Tq5L1w=; b=F69AeyUXbqBc0kFgEFi6An4fAyQcQp/KwA0G9ijf4Gz1OdGKnrrntd16WgeVksp8IVQLVNWmzFCghH9m1ta8bsFbVTjN1C+D/DlvANFAEh3FQLH7gxhoEimUtgSZEs3aaTPojppOfte4LSlmGN+APFg14GKj9Jl1K2oh+BVHchTenGXEiFvcmt/ebjBheW7f36r0Xp1p+RouV8IpI49OwWprdGbPR6eu+k9jdXg/5Fy2v1dWHwjwjl/6XOzBvPMy
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=385b.5c40ce6b.k1901; bh=DVFEqCQSqF1QrxKAQ2tCMgzIpd5CONl/6+jm1Tq5L1w=; b=GZTZT+gj6yvbD8IbDEOPvA63kBa40eW9GdsTpPCzNOuv18x96FmtLmsQg4y9N2y+A5Ev9UhTC35DFRJOeg+OFnytGaJDV7PM2W4V2rjTEnLLy6WQl90B2wkJIt7oQkwB4zxn1R0Oto/CyUJLyejziXqiDe1lYtLIpbMRDoSD/sphzMR40n4I7o3A/a2QcSi5gij3/4FPifJZoRC4NjT0dIr4iK9U0L+CMFt2wnpzrQlNisM/743GeKEGJSl7Dnm/
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 17 Jan 2019 18:50:19 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 16153200CDA113; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:50:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: 17 Jan 2019 13:50:18 -0500
Message-Id: <20190117185019.16153200CDA113@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <3104294.rU99Ex2XNH@kitterma-e6430>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tNeH2gE3i6hCMuUObcrxiGSIOFg>
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 18:50:23 -0000

In article <3104294.rU99Ex2XNH@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>My understanding is that, since, as you say, PSOs (like .bank) have a pre-
>existing relationship with their registrants, they don't need PSD DMARC to 
>audit their registrant's policies.  For an entity like that, it offers the 
>chance to get feedback on other, presumably non-existent, domains so as to 
>better understand abuse patterns within the PSD they manage.  It also gives 
>them a mechanism to express a reject policy for those domains, which does not 
>currently exist.  This may help improve rejection of cousin domains by 
>receivers.
>
>For single entity PSDs, like for a very large Internet company that is, 
>conveniently not named after a large South American rain forest (so they can 
>get it registered), it offers other advantages.  In cases like this, the PSD 
>operates like an organizational domain except for the fact that in the current 
>DMARC instantiation, their record won't work for subdomains.  PSD DMARC would 
>enable '.example' to publish a single record for all lower level entries in 
>the zone.

That all seems reasonable but it still feels like a lot of mechanism for
marginial benefit, particularly since we have no clue who's going to run it
if we can't foist it off on Mozilla.

I wonder if there's any way to get the PSL to tag vanity TLDs.

R's,
John