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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 3A0BE1203AF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=ZsHjhGbX; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=Vd2jgS2b
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 WJmWxeWT_eVr for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C031F120310 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76E15F8071F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1562952636; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=vgbDVDFhro3+N3ens7aL/SC7QGdIXX9m9n1IVTyXZUo=; b=ZsHjhGbXIo0xZVSav5zAc4Axn7ZxLaeNCALqRWczxrzjNvJSBO/pkRDO 2p9hySSeumO+u5l0swWmzrkDgJquAg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1562952636; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=vgbDVDFhro3+N3ens7aL/SC7QGdIXX9m9n1IVTyXZUo=; b=Vd2jgS2bJGW7HA1jRFq4uClLdYZ6V6vOOa5o7Qv/Rh2Xl+/hLLFYdv4/ 21YFP58qZjheps16eTI0cj0LMxvztNcLfcE5TiXRuLoQO9TkQf1FTQtMjW ulwKoIxsQOmapN4uh0HdE99VYtZoeQt9N0KWHVr8pb18LkCHxxBQsjSqzP fWgcKi83+QjspR5JCPhFe8bf1IM/vwmO1OAD+44BoTFYGwPF+yrOpqZQPD XBAy4AK9FP6M3n5YRuq+vJt1WtN/AjNnNoWiIWYsXaiG3Fxpebzkoj0mcr 2VgGMTS9FnmBXnerwcJX4/enNWBpq4t82E6jaDzN1mvczcvh/Ch4Ug==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 486FDF80607 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:30:35 -0400
Message-ID: <1851683.DtEN5jD5Wj@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <54eac0ab-985e-69be-5985-8a53c51c7580@tana.it>
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfM9BPLz6UR1bLTrE30dsWLv3k=UNNbGDGCrAfT7Op7FGg@mail.gmail.com> <54eac0ab-985e-69be-5985-8a53c51c7580@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xvYhUe9M2WXwVS4gdMP6V8K2H_0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working Group Last Call: 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: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:30:39 -0000

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 6:07:50 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to
> > implement are needed
> 
> Appendix B.1 lacks a criterion to establish enlisting.  Couldn't we
> require an explicit statement about seizing DMARC reports in, say, the
> delegation report?  Alternatively, that policy can be stated in a
> well-known place under the delegation services URL, so that
> registrants know what they do.

It's in the appendix because we don't have a clear path forward.  This is part 
of the experiment.  We need to be careful though since different PSDs operate 
under different authorities and controls, so there is a point beyond which it's 
not the IETF that decides.

Scott K