[dmarc-ietf] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 19 April 2021 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5B43A3A86; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, dmarc@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <161885112312.4942.10331763108529677724@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:52:03 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/utvueHjY4CEOnXJ0J_aUPJ8OCpQ>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 19 Apr 2021 16:52:04 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. A few minor clarifying comments that may help this document: o Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489]. They control all subdomains of the tree. These are effectively private domains, but listed in the current public suffix list. They are treated as Public for DMARC purposes. They require the same protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently unable to benefit from DMARC. I found this paragraph confusing. In "These are effectively private domains", it wasn't clear to me what "these" refers to. Is it the domains or the subdomains. Otherwise it says "these are effectively" twice, with two different descriptions. Perhaps, check if this paragraph can be reworded to make it clearer. These issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since they (e.g., the ".gov.example" used above) do not typically send mail. I presume that this means that emails are not directly sent from @gov.example, rather than there is no mail below .gov.example. Perhaps worth clarifying? For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records. This is a broader definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020]. I presume that this means that there is no response for any of A, AAAA and MX records, not that there is no response for a particular type of record. Should this be clarified? Although arguably it seems pretty obvious. Thanks, Rob
- [dmarc-ietf] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draf… Robert Wilton via Datatracker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Robert Wilton's No Objection on … Tim Wicinski