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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 16 April 2020 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F127A3A0B9D; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:39:24 -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 lBAQGGbSj0vR; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26BDD3A0B9B; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s195so1527979vkb.11; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:39:23 -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=2FD1KxDuquNkLhr3kr61HFLoMa/Dqp6S+mjBcP6sT2o=; b=f5tNjn3eaMjK89/jjkS94zVkbw5H5XRrDlvgI0ykhkOjYYL+aB4WSBey7COaIRPPcl uY6eF03dRIJI0aW75PJMwmmgK+wl8qh8l9RTVb8vjTA9BawnALHSaYJF3nxc7u/WJxxO XT8k+9WKo8qaOeKNV/l/DKV5XuuFKS5qfKmSxPebuQB4IACiXASoZ7/1NWI5hvx7B4+J 6BDYH90zgqZwLip+eYwlX2XgpGrRz/vV3QafBU6OYbi1wxdoVcy7DvVbR65kMUD4YuXH Ww+F1MEtp2Bd7DMFwkY+1T+YEpAEw/5c57iWxKuzkilflDgnBY7M8aok5Zcj99SsOizb r8gA==
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=2FD1KxDuquNkLhr3kr61HFLoMa/Dqp6S+mjBcP6sT2o=; b=A+o8XR25QFuRM0XHiTGkM2+tDZeSrpFoBOc93iB08xWL4g8IlOgNhlASmxNawFBaIR tZd9XhKHtbdGtezMM8bYNhZqOrTc27baHabse/aOVVW6xDhaBo2tweoqywTFyYqusTdd NCZE5pyyB9OF3jM1jx1PUiXuYpMBMMha+IpymOqAVFgMmj1M79xmoVyIRXbb6+md69vH aBGATLLqCmdmlDf6RKc4a1nIiJSFJtB23p3SUYzT812sefB/3D9U+SZANLfmTgZbYAJC /Rfc81qkUHg7092h6rxbMw+D+xmuRZLoBklXQ05pApjviBue2VEzvjVVO/a9XtcKvbVZ inew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Puaivc9CH3ntKi345UDrWNg20NbMcC67W5biOnQyv/3eTo0uGG5k 1WzSZry0jT01kNVCadFi5fK3VLRrmgmiB00fVIU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJELLpZD2j+Hxj7qb92tzxAwpw6bxHCdTs4slU3IZiv5v1RIywwNbvxeMZiNuI3MsL3dec+jSFA75uT9/7pgtk=
X-Received: by 2002:ac5:c3ce:: with SMTP id t14mr11823197vkk.60.1587008361893; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <5104491.njhNTWfIiN@sk-desktop> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:39:11 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Seth Blank <>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <>, IETF DMARC WG <>,, General Area Review Team <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa926605a3602ddc"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [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: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 03:39:25 -0000

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:31 PM Seth Blank <> wrote:

> 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?

+1.  If even a small number of people (and the GenART review itself might
be enough) thinks it's in need of this kind of improvement, I would be
surprised if the IESG sends it back to the working group for revision.  If
the goal is to get this thing published so people can start conducting the
experiment, putting the work in now can only help you.