Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 16 April 2020 14:29 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 057463A09A3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.852 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=ntCGjTDQ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=op9r1dfr
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 v1LFC24Dk100 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 6A5153A09A2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 7696 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2020 14:29:39 -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=1e0e.5e986bd3.k2004; bh=LcPTSSwxfKMAlAxk3rR66G8sw0hrr5s4qaGTxzZR6WE=; b=ntCGjTDQWAzBsYz4CR63jHwqdl7h1NDEOrULD5Os1/1mSTbjH3tieZbJZj0/W+Cr891Qv03lNcNZStFMmvbI6plsV018gwfupLpONSjVrAF40YqOoYzGLc71cz6E9P3B2E3Rtk8Z+fFUOCiQEyNJvUfwSgse99Vz71qPlZ1BtmhH8/gcd8ZF1IBUlUOA4Em+nC83jooAsN4tdBx8hr4Ulw7WOEjCJyxgEp2uTXB70ZNQatZKBjLNuMdKZviO5aAO
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=1e0e.5e986bd3.k2004; bh=LcPTSSwxfKMAlAxk3rR66G8sw0hrr5s4qaGTxzZR6WE=; b=op9r1dfrZJP1RamxmIYGyvrZ4zJNLmmGGrb+iOzpWs7IN9awnIkODq1PHg3UpedL7pW0hbrlXja7hZx1XVSRK94G1mgx8soWS+VNfukSeR1RnDumkVwMw0zk5gJQ+sOQzw96e3e54jU99SFmiwAPokBwik9e01M2OxAi+15+9BC+nH1cEe8MwtoWrv4eh5SigFW1klymETjcyCZKlqB/mH4594xCzB2b81Rv8UXW1nIXHaC6VNY9wDdefBv0JrJF
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; 16 Apr 2020 14:29:38 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id CCD9517E8F5E; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:29:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 16 Apr 2020 10:29:38 -0400
Message-Id: <20200416142938.CCD9517E8F5E@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: scott@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <4666D39F-85F5-4AD2-A754-11FED0A5C169@kitterman.com>
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/vyTq262ZYerv9dqR-KqynbSS_3U>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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, 16 Apr 2020 14:29:42 -0000

In article <4666D39F-85F5-4AD2-A754-11FED0A5C169@kitterman.com> you write:
>Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't think it's possible to actually make this clear to anyone that isn't familiar
>with RFC 7489 without essentially turning this into a proto 7489bis.

I agree.  Hence my suggestion last week to tear out all of the TLD
stuff or move it into an appendix and just say this is the name above
the Organizational domain which you can find into RFC 7489.

The reality is that any of the 8000 domains in the PSL could publish a
PSD record, and I would not want to try to explain to anyone in the
IESG why most of them are there.  So let's stay as far away from that
as possible.  Policy Super Domain, remember?

R's,
John