Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 15 November 2020 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 CD6E63A0AC3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:29:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Jh2MWfiUSGru for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 81C0D3A0A87 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.62.181]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 0AFKWrId007630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:32:54 -0800
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201115202114.E4225271B9ED@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <6f93c264-965a-85bb-0209-e0d58bc8c7b5@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:29:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201115202114.E4225271B9ED@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tqjNKBVXkRqpesdEDRfDTgbZ4ac>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 20:29:28 -0000

On 11/15/2020 12:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <CADyWQ+HWEK=wm5WLTcgiB0JBY0GubntOp3Qhzfr68YB2__RRNg@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-09
>>
>> Please review the changes and offer up comments to the working group.
> 
> I looked at it, seems fine as an experiment.
> 
> If we end up changing the way regular DMARC looks for Org domains, PSD
> might become redundant. Or not.


I'm going to reiterate that this draft is tightly integrated into DMARC 
and shouldn't be, for all the reasons we've been discussing.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net