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

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 04 June 2021 02:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362883A24CB for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:46:07 -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, 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 s7svhIiU1aTx for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 171B13A24C8 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i22so4810386pju.0 for <>; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=GJmDgNQMatl5CJgV5fHlOqXvr78Lrg+TfFmVaiuXbCg=; b=ijCuAuOqRlh6kPyPi3U0Eo32FRfyWUlMY5S1OIz9iIh0Ue75xm6jyIeatiFdcZFDny EwXUXbF9cYKAV1cMTT+rKkqySgKa+fUWhqP+rcthyvgmE98TiR329kvKtAVfzgV8EzPq KsHhRDVwqwuO3TQCo6Fcn9WRUgRixnljsJ+hVdMa+ptEzcJTzG+N2SjVVbE2v2rfQLav yXXMb2u/J3hXRWNFWgIk9fjnvKat0UjIxdaxAVI6MgOzPMq1VbAc/Qtqf5LJd1KwxAkv +Jyd96Q9KahzjoGak2p6Z/ISrp3F8EP1QPFCdsKoHm4qg21RcYv7KuOfxMoHe8GTkf01 iegw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=GJmDgNQMatl5CJgV5fHlOqXvr78Lrg+TfFmVaiuXbCg=; b=VIPvF4gM/fAuvxJVQTtrSSeT49c4MCYKyNb/qE7wI1OIsESEMkW4vr14Xr4ZD9eHGd fODaMxwC10nGGpf7jnhx+jdHYBWY7MN/B3ToyLKZDTnYlwFy9hGjHQHZzlkgXLjGcZ4g 1Vy9z6egS7EbvYEff8IEd6fz71Ei3PBAK3Y+Q+lDuTFiHJi5XAO/PmeGCuCr6w0Xjpzf IqB/x/geaZmBBSEoM0cRJn6vZycnU4PBDl7Y7zz3+HeQre9VU+gb7cu6AWGarVIHGeSg ipwwwlNWFRkTR/flH575JiM5SQiXJiCeCodEkFMLhUVQ5Hk1gtK9AjpSlTxZc/9LT7Ir jI2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301UnEqY28aTwzuOOOdY7XyuDZ9TVN6jBryLyhpsIS0uioFngjI ziMI7iQZwOrBR5G6qWhvYHAHilXvx1H7kA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzITfk6BEvIDDsldMon1r3aMljLamj8soh6C9BrmuyWPAGnZqVgYvLFK+kGR4GKfMEvfdDTEQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ad8e:: with SMTP id s14mr2468132pjq.198.1622774760323; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id bo14sm3328323pjb.40.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Crocker <>
To: Todd Herr <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:45:58 -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="------------2AA946E4E6BFB1DC0DCE729B"
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 02:46:08 -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. Here's a link 
to 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