Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt

Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com> Thu, 17 January 2019 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@sethblank.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 1EE98130E72 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:58:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.042
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 kr3KnoJqmOBV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:58:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x241.google.com (mail-oi1-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C16C12958B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:58:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x241.google.com with SMTP id y23so7313649oia.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:58:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JFoNjLxFt5nbLmpgijMJ7YX9aYhxYscmyi2NlaqB6WQ=; b=bSsAoMF+QNYJri37szJO72KCp5V3i/8aAf3ISQtVLZuYL0DZNb5SQ0Ci0ZCFGFHb42 8rzdBet7jz98ZFVqsVJf2C0vErEj2PPVv8Q26xQv4XsG3fhsLUruelCtSEvCDu7gJecK mw6cn0X+BqgjqsL69iWfZauPWtOIX2SkUIRgb7/A3On1H/KhpSxErN9hLInnyXEP2sqX sEVS5Pe/gu0vOJdRcKXu+Y30DRMdLMKnhTqjhl7LmB3gHDQa8yI2T5h8bBlSxc7q0Yki KjGrS8S+RiUJ+EvWInUuEdDJOwEtXqjjKJOAGpQTwLrF2qPZwHbeaAbFqo2fQs+S9TeN 58pA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=JFoNjLxFt5nbLmpgijMJ7YX9aYhxYscmyi2NlaqB6WQ=; b=JCPUivhriqgT/SYHQ4iYx+lMF4Uj+ON6+v9RO0lDwo9JkK3yr5S10oHIfD7QS1ryuu XS5zDT8IG0CT/mMfrLpiEyE9HLRKgwUdcK0ugb666iCqRlaH81SP+u1ScXrlXH83jvdh R/DH9obVEhrDAtW3/MlEZd+ikGupZfJP4Ry1Cm4NsaRrGpZQubhZwwoxOpc5+PSorzO8 j9eB6yMax+zeAOKayf/xawHKSpkyZqRLFjWauiknJ2nHljny9UW1JorNnOziMJKct8PG /lcEmHaLAb4r+2Emqn7pbbAtQBnVcsKZmQUg81xKVYt1AMAiZeJB2d0kRWAxHoxUpdNg BsSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukf5JQ8mjzkbzODwWy3fthj1SmEeHX0n7ukdHKfgqwbPd+SRUj36 3SY5I89QV3JTA/BZHfSMtrzcpbZSVVvUGCAK+AZ+qKl+LD4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5RFB29iwypsblV5pge4YghbCWb3aNJ6XH1t5tsWw7mmisqSdayD+IIqlEh9osdgjimnFhjWR8MMnu012UBPek=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5117:: with SMTP id f23mr4970790oib.72.1547758721253; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:58:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3104294.rU99Ex2XNH@kitterma-e6430> <20190117185019.16153200CDA113@ary.qy> <CAD2i3WOV16Hh5qLg9Dp3Kvroi-S+5UOzDWkX=ZBR9vRPTkyuww@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1pPRj963z_6acyPHVwGHzSF0Gg=hhA3EqVFxEaLP+mYKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1pPRj963z_6acyPHVwGHzSF0Gg=hhA3EqVFxEaLP+mYKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:58:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WNDWNsn7R+k2e=HXr2FdHCGsQ8bwbvzQk8Mog-4tojmNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c761a2057fada837"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ySApT96xsBIGiRIixyBx7IOprQo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01.txt
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, 17 Jan 2019 20:58:44 -0000

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:41 PM Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> wrote:

> What is the difference between a PS vs a PSD in your statement? For the
> DNS a record is a record is a record.
>

Specifically, there are some domains (like .brand in my example) that
should be capable of being used as an organizational domain but are not
public suffixes themselves. This is exactly what "branded PSD" in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-01#section-1 refers to.

Without this distinction, these domains don't make sense on a list of
public suffixes like the PSL. If we're going to have one list that
enumerate both public suffixes and public suffix domains, then this
distinction is critical for the branded PSD use case.