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

Tim Wicinski <> Fri, 09 October 2020 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D97F3A15BD; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BQ5X9D8LWU2l; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7A5B3A15BC; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o8so10462621otl.4; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z4DHzA0YH4Tsbw9dP4ZaiquSoX2/sovvVm1Zal6Qt5Y=; b=YJH8xCQtUqF0xeBIu0aL0etSKUw2KtkIcqAKf6fnhlA6BNZBJG6TIYpB57wPhLsFR5 uFgAbfvT1NOux/REbaYcIkwTzsTUmfHN1rIlI0s7pVMMH5UHI+9yRR2yxj24XbnMadgQ 71J+y7no+brfRw3OH1G03/diRrGs5a3q/nXgO3WXK6QxpCdFdY/USfRetyQv7Fb+MJgr 76Y1vHE3b/3lVcx7sHUzWdzz5hTNURtzRUTdK3xjzF+bEshpld4RdfRYcz1U/zPI82sG cKM6RtccpRTmYACCn0sJyt3ZlwdSb7Hj36Rzrpfb/3yR2wvgoGvvfV34Qwx++xFlskdv Q2+g==
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=Z4DHzA0YH4Tsbw9dP4ZaiquSoX2/sovvVm1Zal6Qt5Y=; b=X0mPC9khb36mrds24Gl92UL5UT8WDbtriKlVQATjDb/KSiNBC/fX+SXXDJMw09MTS2 Fpaig9a0iavadZHv91Fk933xX/BY/OQPamMPxW/yYNnX0WY0qgOhkgrwOycnkxdEgXOC P3vJoLdj6kl5Cmyp0f0tyocu0RkcLAYJ4nSyuFnhuPvcM+cD2S0rtg3eDgW/ON+CijMW t/nCigCLW1IjcAvmUqQeAg9vCMZCPP+ako7PiQeGDigizfqaYd0ssEPktY24aW3YptEZ RkoCz5c68pDc5znGfGbSe5uqo7rYRyrKG5qgL8rxF+K1j2VIFnzJBr26dZqqQbvodNaH UoGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533bjSsJVt2XWLsmujibpwlTuW3G9/XKRckeLtUZRl0cp6xMEBBK KRQ2EKy50n5F+fGfJgtpTU7Mmj7IuuOXP2RBaZLHGAvNeS2LWw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwODWFnNUWMT5LaHkeB6fFogDfLSVKaFHjCbgHjFZo345OdoURpOhbnWlnVPotsUfK9tXNrjiGJ/KJYM/sWOEk=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:da7:: with SMTP id 36mr10764228ots.288.1602283945968; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tim Wicinski <>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:52:14 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <>,, IETF DMARC WG <>, General Area Review Team <>,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000006e2fae05b144cdb1"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [dmarc-ietf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 22:52:33 -0000


Apologies for the delay on the PSD updates.  I sat down with Scott and went
through your review and made lots of edits
related to your comments.  I actually attached the reply to your email as
it's been sitting in my editor buffer for a few months too long.

One normative change that I want your assistance on is the descriptions of
the Experiments.  I updated them and pulled them apart, to make them more
understandable to folks looking at this for the first time.  I'm not still
100% on them.

I want to go back through your opening Nits/editorial comments to make sure
I'm not missing anything.

Here's the link to the diff.


On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 9:22 PM Dale R. Worley <> wrote:

> Scott Kitterman <> writes:
> > [important discussion clipped for brevity]
> > If you want to add it and are confident we aren't diving into a deep,
> > deep hole, I don't strongly object.  Just let me know what to add.
> Well, my review amounted to about 5 pages of ordinary text, and my
> follow-up e-mail about a page and a half.  If I was unclear regarding
> what I thought should be done to make the document clearer to the
> unsophisticated reader, please get back to me so that I can improve my
> review style.
> Dale