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

Seth Blank <> Thu, 16 April 2020 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9AC3A0B3F for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 xcKvs7PeCgYh for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5069C3A08E5 for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j16so15486066oih.10 for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RXWj/NXSCYxgGvlTPqLqriVWnSpcf619P3GDaaXos6o=; b=mnuu3Kv5HCuupUw2XRxdSzQvKzuswT9jjXt20/kcd+Y7BL/ZRyuvJuX+5BvRJvfhU4 sUp7dcRuWcISCvnbQvUZUd7P0V/t+v8xAXCrQIiP91UVVe0erp7jfCQsNZW2k6s/b14m uz4xSg1DRZfTiyRdMTvLNNJXW2UW71uV1/0K22qRjARvG7S9Y8DIe5jC022ucZ4/lsza 1Kpx+D64rRVsU4Uwgcmp2/M34/NVo+LDIPWHB/3+P2myjsQFxpB9fRaYVnP3Wh4OA9eE rkO9zbgbnYAeRcoedJ4iakngc0JBMhVqc+UQLx/W/cIysnsgwaHpF3YyaXJsfNDuGhVh KFwQ==
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:cc; bh=RXWj/NXSCYxgGvlTPqLqriVWnSpcf619P3GDaaXos6o=; b=Bl2t+j3iJayuFZ9+ildrnMoxftqU3QseQ2yHQFsVNXWtUK9wfMTqYsgnQPmBEvzn2R FceF5iRLbloK0jxjADayaABciZddBdc/PnrSdYu/k76q+/CvXfOIZ4WUZUkFg97sXBG8 vah54Mw95o43xXKIQOP0PKjLpDkBCnwQpmyEssUW6SKXHRONi/OG+gOz7mBjUuATkECj xmer9wqtH7PAzVnRebNy7VrHy6a2Em/fcGoCzy09cNFBYJz5O0S3wYm3yTYobEWRX0e/ DeBVRouLKXbnI33v/d/4sYWtqxDktunFh8d9bhu90MwNreTTcqKyOaJDd9bLNSNcxvEV oYsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYxpPSHZvZKGmZVRJlNQ7v453fRSAOCOOzk3r+4K6QCHDmfYy+s sRRUgUwFTMdbmWQRO61o7B3FxpXdIi1R3SJSjXtGNQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIiwmmDqYNtmNVNNlAkrDfcJ3uN5kuPmrRsBk4lRBcUeqVYN277ScftKHQ7YOrMWE80/+j5WDh+CMiqMdTHOKc=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:31ce:: with SMTP id x197mr1687269oix.157.1587007875049; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <5104491.njhNTWfIiN@sk-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <5104491.njhNTWfIiN@sk-desktop>
From: Seth Blank <>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:30:59 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Scott Kitterman <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6008705a36010ab"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
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: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 03:31:23 -0000

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:45 PM Scott Kitterman <> wrote:

> > I think you are very close to an Abstract/Introduction that is clearly
> > comprehensible to people who are not familiar with DMARC.
> Considering this is an extension to DMARC, I don't think that's the target
> audience.

As an individual: everyone who reads the document stand-alone gets confused
by this lack of clarity (it's the common thread through all the last call
reviews so far), and a concise summary up top feels valuable both for this
evaluation process, and for any future consumers of the document. Whether
someone's familiar with DMARC or not, if they're reading this document,
what's the harm in spelling it out very clearly, especially if we have text
that we believe accomplishes this?