Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Seth Blank <> Wed, 10 July 2019 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FE212012A for <>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.693
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROIGeyIFm7Zi for <>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B0AA12004A for <>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a10so3790402wrp.9 for <>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=HOV4nVrZ7v4K5xpGtXTreytEY+MBZKAJZt5PUTwHdtk=; b=d0e1tKA46Ig+z4eWSl8zjhWSsbW2goHUJJGwEbuZCVKqghZiCRFNHf89gFNlRhTBeN NZRjSMdLSw8xKPA8fI2cEjD8/n6IwrU8iZ9zStUCjtTucmZJLx5/Zb2ZahP7+1vDURKa sZzzO04sjej2cezLjMF6udLSDtucyr/k9+vlKJ0itpq4pfe7AAA++wtxGrHtwc9TefYd L64LMeYgpO/46Ti9xKnzh2hetB123CblhdfjGP0UTe8wXGATt+TpWZP18uqDUtURamNP rOcpgDezEzHtnh3x8C5QME/OAvo7+60/X2/ev4IjLfGn8/V5GbE7YVsnFukT1JSgqw/m BPlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=HOV4nVrZ7v4K5xpGtXTreytEY+MBZKAJZt5PUTwHdtk=; b=E3+RIWfJXt6l7kwdmfpNp9Rn1OY9aUZ0NAHcfnebLUqKtMx/57/7vnmFhh520QZBMS Ze61lArrvH5flZgBxtxmLhq7a5e17ICz1qJTpU0XyIbKYt0y+MN6Exlo/+rzT4+QsJMK mRN4duYTVjohgOcQoBY04EpnjLJct8o60+T2VdU1Mh4j/vIxi2FFiLseUqm1OHWHeTNG +wTF+1f7eHoGRNXw/tvahLgt0qKfdusXSYPd6Ljm7QvAB0GWmMEQKnvI8/334TjKShX1 Wcz86GmTHqeKhsg0aqbfdi2Ntfi51heOEp9Ta+cwLvPytGRry90ZBoLUB9RSJQdPJ4dS od0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUegX5LJ9PaSWwBrCoVa7K2f/d81ULwCbTZQlYTegnmqFFTuDz3 SR6/tgnQUJP2Djxi5IeGtyItWJHamvGrgxbGzG8R8FOl3WY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwsxjxxBFuhm/N8G+aBHbgETerH+pJQoHhdq13k1NEkz7ehlDyKkVZeRbEA8PUnVpqUQDkH8EIWYfurdWy/dAA=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:c803:: with SMTP id d3mr33884960wrh.130.1562790079476; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Seth Blank <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:21:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008bca45058d596b71"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 20:21:23 -0000

There is one week left before WGLC closes, and the below three items still
need resolution. Please speak up!

-- Seth, as Secretary

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:21 PM Seth Blank <>; wrote:

> As Secretary, there are three items that have not yet reached consensus
> that must be resolved during WGLC:
> 1. What further context is needed in the introduction
> 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to implement
> are needed
> 3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only NXDOMAINs
> Seth
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:08 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <>;
> wrote:
>> This message begins Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd,
>> which is currently at version 04.  An 05 may appear shortly with some text
>> changes that were previously discussed on the list; these do not include
>> any technical changes (I believe) so the author is free to update with only
>> those changes as planned.
>> Please review the document and submit your feedback by Wednesday, July
>> 17th.  We would ideally like to have enough responses to support our claim
>> to the IESG that the document clearly has working group consensus.
>> Note that we will be in pre-meeting draft embargo at that time so a new
>> version dealing with any feeback cannot appear until IETF 105 begins on the
>> 22nd.
>> I'm planning to do my own review as the document shepherd with an eye
>> toward consumption by readers with only a passing familiarity with DMARC.
>> If anyone wants to join me in looking at it through that lens, you'd be
>> welcome.
>> -MSK, co-chairin'
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
> --

*Seth Blank* | Director, Industry Initiatives
*p:* 415.273.8818

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential

and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of

individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended

and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use,

disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in

this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then

delete it from your system.