Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Thanks Barry I sent a pull request along to Scott with the changes. I also generated an rfcdiff which I include for completeness sake. thanks tim On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 5:02 PM Barry Leiba wrote: > It looks right to me. Thanks, Tim. > > Barry > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 4:53 PM Tim Wicinsk

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

It looks right to me. Thanks, Tim. Barry On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 4:53 PM Tim Wicinski wrote: > I was just working on merging Barry's comments with Dave's and Kurt's. > > I attached what should be correct. I would like someone to just double > check my work. > > tim > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

I was just working on merging Barry's comments with Dave's and Kurt's. I attached what should be correct. I would like someone to just double check my work. tim On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 4:35 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > These all work for me. Thanks for the contributions. > > Scott, pleas

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

These all work for me. Thanks for the contributions. Scott, please work your magic with a revision so the chairs can request publication and we can get this on its way. -MSK On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:13 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/25/2021 8:41 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > Especially in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On 2/25/2021 8:41 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: Especially in the case of the PSD policies, one should not expect that the controlling organization would necessarily be "a mail-originating organization". Generally the idea is to *disavow* being such :-) Suggested alternate text: Domain-based M

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

This is getting much better - thanks for all the wordsmithing. I have one nuance to add... On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:13 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > > The suggested revisions to Barry's suggested revisions, below, primarily > serve to reference the PSD construct without needing to reference the > PS

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

If everyone liked using the PSL and making it integral to DMARC, then that would be fine.  But they don't; so it isn't. The suggested revisions to Barry's suggested revisions, below, primarily serve to reference the PSD construct without needing to reference the PSL.  And, of course, there are

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

OK, here's my proposal; please let me know what you think: — Abstract — OLD DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating organization can express domain-level policies and preferences for message validation

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On Mon 22/Feb/2021 15:36:00 +0100 Ken O'Driscoll wrote: I would go even further and not even talk about the trees and nodes. Also, echoing elsewhere in this thread, making it really clear that this is not a case of /DMARC is coming for your TLD/. So, I’d propose something super basic like this

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On Monday 22 February 2021 16:14, Dave Crocker wrote: > Strictly speaking co.uk is not ICAN-authorized.  It's authorized by > mechanisms internal to the UK. > None of the ccTLDs registry operators would call or consider themselves "ICANN-authorized". The original authorisation to use the namespa

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

That does not answer the question. We can only clarify the registration question by clarifying what entity's registration mechanism is in scope. Do we simply say that this document applies to registrations occurring immediately below an entry on the PSL? On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 11:14 AM Dave Crock

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

>>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all those terms mean and >>> how they are all related. yes. But it's worse than that.  The current language is not automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS administration. As is being noted, I

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On 2/22/2021 7:49 AM, Douglas Foster wrote: So what is the best nomenclature for referring to the "ICANN-authorized registries"?   Dave's phrase or something else? Strictly speaking co.uk is not ICAN-authorized.  It's authorized by mechanisms internal to the UK. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

So what is the best nomenclature for referring to the "ICANN-authorized registries"? Dave's phrase or something else? On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:26 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > > >>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what > all those terms mean and > >>> how they are al

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all those terms mean and how they are all related. yes. But it's worse than that.  The current language is not automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS administration. As is being noted, I too thin

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

07:09 To: Barry Leiba Cc: Dave Crocker ; IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:02 PM Barry Leiba mailto:barryle...@computer.org>> wrote: I agree that the abstract is unclear. This makes no sense to me: domain

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

>> > I'm at a loss to understand what's confusing. I'm not convinced that >> > "registrations" in the >> > context of domain names is unclear to a reader familiar with this space. >> >> I am absolutely convinced that it is. Think of people in M3AAWG, for >> whom this is very relevant. Many of t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:02 PM Barry Leiba wrote: > I agree that the abstract is unclear. This makes no sense to me: > >domain names represent either nodes in the tree below >which registrations occur, or nodes where registrations have >occurred; it does not permit a domain name to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On 2/21/21 08:49, Chudow, Eric B CIV NSA DSAW (USA) wrote: > I think it's getting better, but I wouldn't call them Internet Naming > Authorities. Should we just call them higher-level entities? There are proper names for these actors - there's no need to be even more vague ... > Also, while the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Eric Chudow DoD Cybersecurity Mitigations 410-854-5735, eric.b.chudow@mail.mil From: Douglas Foster Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 9:01 AM To: Dave Crocker Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy ; IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt This wording

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

This wording attempts to address the objections by giving "registration" a specific context.I also rewrote some of it for readability. - - DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating organization can policies and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On 2/18/2021 9:10 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Circling back to this: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:56 PM Dave Crocker > wrote: On 1/29/2021 12:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:51 AM Dave Crocker mailto:dcroc...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

I agree that the abstract is unclear. This makes no sense to me: domain names represent either nodes in the tree below which registrations occur, or nodes where registrations have occurred; it does not permit a domain name to have both of these properties simultaneously. I don't unde

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

Circling back to this: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 12:56 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 1/29/2021 12:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:51 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > >> >> Abstract >> >>DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and >>Conformance) is a sc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On 1/29/2021 12:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:51 AM Dave Crocker > wrote: Abstract DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating o

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:51 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > > Abstract > >DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and >Conformance) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating >organization can express domain-level policies and preferences for >message validation,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

On 1/29/2021 6:59 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: This starts a *one week* Working Group Last Call. Sorry, but even the Abstract appears to be littered with problematic language. I always try to provide alternate language, when I can, but in spite of having offered suggestions for this document in

[dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

All We've done a number of updates to the PSD document to reflect the GEN-ART review, mostly to expand on the experiments. There has been enough changes that we want to do a short working group last call. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10 To look at the differences, I would su