From gerv@mozilla.com Fri Aug 5 04:16:59 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DD112D10B for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 04:16:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mozilla-org.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 X6lvYG0FIU6x for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 04:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (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 C8C7912D5A9 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 04:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id i5so32247815wmg.0 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 04:16:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q+6SSy2Xi12B/7uZMecweJKCWFLgEmb8yTZaUVe6JHQ=; b=Ge1ZLSN6FdHiqO4O2HTvZpsx+3dLMkq/yGvJotIKvKJ3WFl2AgTSDNyBpe20eR/Fvh st1DdDEcZCZXW2lDz3tXkxufD1YbMaiUdR0UUSzSMxNdRzn2HPo8JDELyK87lBewsai9 MKY3Q3a7p5ajUxg2eJwecTfF9dO8+wuVmroDfby7uSCN/2yxDE3QNiattNTwrOc6bVW1 YNOppzsyM642xL5Rkd4C64bmVsm21XdLinz0qz/e/mzrPgowK7TlqOyOyYoqfN63zX2j hc+H0DbDnB2UvjXmCsZhmte3xeXCvY9MTq9Xqr0ggvoMqEkGR1Se/JlDUKZL03y1OQO9 6QWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q+6SSy2Xi12B/7uZMecweJKCWFLgEmb8yTZaUVe6JHQ=; b=RrwFVbg8HFxl3MSoEc8OktN66InNBopImjVMnPHiDND5ZBtRYcjBzt2u7Rj+JyzowC g8vghiDFTDRjwCskLcyok8TnGBs/RslH+7uSoWRWlXUJAvtIne32kZlcJkcf7HCjOvDV temKxo0EU6dhktyrgUWAL/r0E4i8b7RwOdzePoMh9Jh4+hqS8mS84KmXERJebaZfCijR VxKtC4xsu6yMl31J/sirvC5Ikiyulwt1GqRc5uH3LnIWOAvi5emAs+wGZuAom8x5uyjt zipoE8GtjsnkmkVsIDaS6G3sHVyKE36RAeMUyM8Kd/CI5Wd0NrtY8gaJ6HS3wMYQO+o9 xPXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoous01YQ5k8nlVezuzmdbNkWIBNz+8VXrrYZ5J0bJuyRNp3ttVqPpMaSwuVAqbPaWyx2E X-Received: by 10.194.89.129 with SMTP id bo1mr42549316wjb.105.1470395815252; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 04:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (host81-140-248-56.range81-140.btcentralplus.com. [81.140.248.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q4sm17364226wjk.24.2016.08.05.04.16.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Aug 2016 04:16:53 -0700 (PDT) To: "dbound@ietf.org" References: From: Gervase Markham Message-ID: <5fd67461-a474-7ab5-3201-54fb1d5887e0@mozilla.org> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:16:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Ryan Sleevi Subject: Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 11:18:16 -0000 Hi everyone, I'm super-late to this thread, and it may be that I'm too late entirely, but nevertheless: On 24/05/16 01:54, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > The small pseudo design team observed that it appears as though there is > actually only one community likely to implement our solutions in the > short term, and that is the email community. We perceive it to be > unlikely that a solution produced by this working group for the web > security issue would be adopted in short order by any of the browser > producers. They simply have not expressed a desire to contribute and > adopt, or even concur that there's a serious problem that needs to be > solved. I don't think that's true. There's not an _acute_ problem that needs to be solved, but it is a reasonably serious one. The current mechanisms of both maintaining the PSL and also of shipping and querying it may not be able to scale indefinitely. The current list contains about 8,500 entries, but we had a (technically invalid, but only because the wrong person applied) request to add another 85,000 entries last week. >From a personal perspective, my lack of willingness to contribute has been about my assessment of my own abilities and (lack of) understanding of the technical space in which the fix lives, not a lack of interest in seeing an outcome. > With that in mind, your co-chairs propose that we abandon any grand > unified theory of domain boundary evaluation and focus only on this > email use case. If there is a change of heart from other communities, > or some unifying idea does appear, we can re-evaluate our options at > that time. However, in the interests of being productive toward our > original goals, we propose to assume that is not the case and will not > be in the near future. It was lack of time to read this list, not lack of desire to see a positive outcome, which led to me not fully appreciating the import of this direction change when it was originally posted. While the PSL "works" for browsers now, it will not work forever. In a browser context, the use cases are pretty clear and if only that case were considered (rather than the "grand unified theory"), I'm sure there are a number of possible technical solutions which would work to give domain owners direct control over their boundary-setting. This group seems like the correct collection of people who could solve this problem by proposing changes to the Internet infrastructure, and I'm very sad that the current plan is not to solve it. :-| I suspect that if it's not solved formally, it'll end up being solved informally using some half-assed definition on a wiki page somewhere of the correct magic TXT records you need to add to your DNS so that someone's crawler will notice your boundaries and automatically update some copies of some PSL-like thing somewhere. Gerv From nobody Fri Aug 5 07:46:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E2312D899 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:46:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 LhlPg8BH8zP5 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x230.google.com (mail-it0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::230]) (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 AACA812D898 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x130so23697203ite.1 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:46:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=o1vkskRXZnhh+UWkOs2GmalTQARsJyuPAoPWepAF9fs=; b=au45f8ET8Bb802S4vQ1Qyewnt+lcTYARmT3n9OGDPJlUBGbDSRvQCqPzpfQVZZN1iB BJmFlBjLZ5G/GPmO0vO6x9sdX8Wr6ivDju78xC6v3/zdi6x5hajZCdz7rW0qrsuVKgCK gWu62qp52M8jUkwCp59W9nlB894nmydixirL0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=o1vkskRXZnhh+UWkOs2GmalTQARsJyuPAoPWepAF9fs=; b=VQThgjMAxk/vUxZcRyotPw59fxz6j0ScXm7uiArGB0Pe0Gglxfx4/lnwaeyofg/wwY 3mJdfMb6bNMOl8+XuZvyGoZ+7uCx1bVKCYD2UgCURDdVtuBjcMNAHikoqX5fuAGS2JFY 54sm/ELJLepkCK19SoJrTxKJp04KpNelKIxwWoCc5fyEm4fzZ7kk52gX6/N4iDgX0fXW W5iTSfCwgSQKmWkv2FJmVpirDPbRkdz2An8howB2g/Fy5OvLmh3cWgGn/AVmakLVxWMt cMpsDZ9Pf2H6pD/6OrNlU84Tsjrijq2tyLbIK2AEBiXN1FDuZK0vmBY6yd4lmnuOqyID cugw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouueSC5E0kLEQM+nCLFi5KwmoJW2XPsj1ncrqGa9qQKFpo67I4K7l4F56h2CkYs3fbcH41SqfhZVt8IBnA== X-Received: by 10.36.46.203 with SMTP id i194mr4651231ita.69.1470408378959; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:46:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 10.107.159.16 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:46:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:46:18 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yuR44EU20HyZfzvHH87pd6asEfA Message-ID: To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114aae5e1a6e22053954212a Archived-At: Subject: [dbound] Results of informal dbound discussion in Berlin? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:46:22 -0000 --001a114aae5e1a6e22053954212a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I saw lots of meeting planning notes toward the end of an informal get-together at the end of the week in Berlin. But then I've not seen any summary of what was discussed since then...did the meeting happen? Any progress? --Kurt --001a114aae5e1a6e22053954212a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I saw lots of meeting planning notes toward the end of an = informal get-together at the end of the week in Berlin. But then I've n= ot seen any summary of what was discussed since then...did the meeting happ= en? Any progress?

--Kurt
--001a114aae5e1a6e22053954212a-- From nobody Fri Aug 5 08:03:17 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518DE12D197 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 08:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=deccio.net 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 VxxCkshPBrrf for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 08:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x236.google.com (mail-ua0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::236]) (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 2056812D1A5 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x236.google.com with SMTP id i31so54011704uai.2 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:54:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oxX5c3f4W4VK1HHufR44G4hcoKOEp22dbA1FZcCT7zU=; b=Y0hmOCWmb4KmpPS59i1b+SWnMNAmhKKYMUeHQQ3KPnpIai0yIQYBrW0o8pNmO+0IH8 IQHwHy0UPLKlcGTyM1Z1yGZxe2vXko4E3XCqcZ2uwdKqAg70U1JPXja/V8o/DfIplh2A ahB0rCkgM6J0++3iJ2h88te9UsNMDvfZdULPc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oxX5c3f4W4VK1HHufR44G4hcoKOEp22dbA1FZcCT7zU=; b=cmdymH0rmW6u8ai9O97lnba+iIQ0IkDf2aGzzDsXE8OHzyeRhofgiZI9ClxM4F6OvV FGvbNHWMEJHRB/b9ydiLuLYvSERSVSaszy9j36LKFEJscCkRjJbUgOok3pdtc4R7u7yx 0ia6WPHKN5O2I2tVQOa3ZtbIVsaFF+uylBLZ+/aOLh7ub/V9Ubp4TSI1j6rinvrU+Y3p 5e6zsZgG7CMqWicrNfDKNp6UmI7Km+ORMCad/oJsJNHyAK/FbmERrFWGo4Zlc62z2mbj q9V/DGndqqFBL5rD/ERTHFAnlcihZNf4AI3t9jLxqCx2buSpAEFBEDFtw8Ou+mLyPfm2 3dUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvhmxon/bUs/a6kJp94PshKyOwTL1GQ4c2xIwxdZmMusi9SesjnRVwgWgoFMXQlWA4stDVskopRJXiEFA== X-Received: by 10.176.2.141 with SMTP id 13mr3605003uah.7.1470408897175; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 07:54:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.67.135 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 07:54:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Casey Deccio Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:54:55 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Kurt Andersen (b)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f03defdbb7e0539543f80 Archived-At: Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dbound] Results of informal dbound discussion in Berlin? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:03:16 -0000 --001a113f03defdbb7e0539543f80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > I saw lots of meeting planning notes toward the end of an informal > get-together at the end of the week in Berlin. But then I've not seen any > summary of what was discussed since then...did the meeting happen? Any > progress? > In Berlin a small group met informally. Here is a brief summary of what was discussed. There was some discussion about whether the working group should constrain the solution design such that it should be in the DNS. I (personally) expressed that I didn't think it was necessary because unless there is a solution proposed otherwise, why would we spend cycles to arbitrarily constrain us? I'm not sure our little group had any consensus, but I don't think we weren't really seeking for it. There was some review of the desirable characteristics of a deployable solution. One that was foremost was the notion that a solution should be additive in terms of functionality, using the functionality of the current PSL solution as a baseline--including not breaking current behavior. Additionally, the maximum performance (mostly by way of DNS minimal lookups) of a solution is desirable because current PSL consumers have the benefit of referring to a local copy of the list. We also mentioned several desirable functionality extensions to the PSL: - distributed management of the information. One of the attendees represented an organization with one of the largest contingencies of entries in the PSL and described some of the pains associated with getting their entries updated. - organizational domain detection at arbitrary points between the PSL entry and the domain name in question (e.g., the email suffix from the "From:" header), for DMARC use. - top-down and/or bottom-up policies (i.e., parent speaks for child and/or child speaks for itself, regardless of what parent says) - seamless deployment plan, consistent with where we are now (PSL) and where we'd like to go We discussed the SOPA and ODUP drafts in light of some of these characteristics, and there was a brief demo of the ODUP draft (i.e., implementation). However, there was a clear need of review of these drafts, including by the authors of each. Misunderstanding needs to need to be cleared in order to clear the path to call for adoption within the working group, etc. Please see the following for a summary of the ODUP draft: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/rRs4EghKGxaxU3AFMCDRKHBkh3w Thanks, Casey --001a113f03defdbb7e0539543f80 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@= drkurt.com> wrote:

I saw lots of meeting planning notes toward the end of an info= rmal get-together at the end of the week in Berlin. But then I've not s= een any summary of what was discussed since then...did the meeting happen? = Any progress?

In Berlin = a small group met informally.=C2=A0 Here is a brief summary of what was dis= cussed.

There was some=20 discussion about whether the working group should constrain the solution design such that it should be in the DNS.=C2=A0 I (personally) expressed= =20 that I didn't think it was necessary because unless there is a solution= =20 proposed otherwise, why would we spend cycles to arbitrarily constrain=20 us?=C2=A0 I'm not sure our little group had any consensus, but I don= 9;t think=20 we weren't really seeking for it.

There wa= s some review of the desirable characteristics of a deployable solution.=C2= =A0 One that was foremost was the notion that a solution should be additive in terms of functionality, using the functionality of the current PSL=20 solution as a baseline--including not breaking current behavior.=C2=A0 Addi= tionally, the maximum performance (mostly=20 by way of DNS minimal lookups) of a solution is desirable because=20 current PSL consumers have the benefit of referring to a local copy of=20 the list.=C2=A0 We also mentioned several desirable functionality extension= s=20 to the PSL:

- distributed management of the=20 information.=C2=A0 One of the attendees represented an organization with on= e of the largest contingencies of entries in the PSL and described some of = the pains associated with getting their=20 entries updated.
- organizational domain detection at=20 arbitrary points between the PSL entry and the domain name in question=20 (e.g., the email suffix from the "From:" header), for DMARC use.<= br>
- top-down and/or bottom-up policies (i.e., parent speaks for child=20 and/or child speaks for itself, regardless of what parent says)
- seamless deployment plan, consistent with where we are now (PSL) and w= here we'd like to go

We discussed the SOPA and ODUP drafts in light of some of these=20 characteristics, and there was a brief demo of the ODUP draft (i.e.,=20 implementation).=C2=A0 However, there was a clear need of review of these= =20 drafts, including by the authors of each.=C2=A0 Misunderstanding needs to need to be cleared in order to clear the path to call for adoption=20 within the working group, etc.

Please see the following f= or a summary of the ODUP draft:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/a= rch/msg/dbound/rRs4EghKGxaxU3AFMCDRKHBkh3w

Thanks,
Casey=C2=A0
--001a113f03defdbb7e0539543f80-- From nobody Tue Aug 30 09:06:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D86412D7AB for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:06:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 A4GIsg7arcB9 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yb0-x232.google.com (mail-yb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (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 5D2B412DA7E for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id a7so7832572ybi.0 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:45:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tyHyeLd3KUDLheLdIEohak86haeXuU6MZYcDWkSoeww=; b=aZcuBauidgtO6JgBLBgSWx4qAIYyRqXcU7Mev3zAarKylgroIOi4YdB1q9Bhjfwlth y5Zhvyf0ByPXBTCNqJw3oEfN/nt3sI0Gg+zwjHHuQHlO+aumNLVUsJw+lG2YWVfJb1d7 6AnNP3ljYas2XWXE6gXaoMs+QDU6pEmi1hL/kYWSYcIzfN3PtcszHNt/1er3QuPbZMbn nmp0SmcZ5YqLIvOomope3wt48NqF6eYR6r5z5mvtJseOa97HIb5BNMu90bVWXvigUUm4 I1t+ZRcdnoVU8O3gC2Ayo/NP2cr1Uhhx/51qnN2cgB/ik3FGJ5uOW3XQIrWDIuYc/zEM Chgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tyHyeLd3KUDLheLdIEohak86haeXuU6MZYcDWkSoeww=; b=WrYR8VMx5HMJ2GAjv/rtOHDOWPq/qtnKTnbDhak5GQNojLJ+3PjO9EonQUYubU/9Kb rdEQPQLNc+yQh68Upqi9JdlPuDiQ2SrEHOOrV72VIcbzTa1522+Ufz8IYP3aE79LLxZB t/hiD3ma0UWjIiboy46VyhY4qWo3/rGqLUyqFEvnxyJQYVKqiCQbXfmppfr6xeGzGFdl EJYEF9Wn6Jh0dOUOtPU5cRqZ/akk6kmufSPgpTGb23KGM1xoRuJ4Kl5aJT6qrO4O3qBY IG1m6W6bCt3MZ+idjlU6fULZtkTL2R+DU2JD1gSlCT2pjsPx0JXIMBVysxWo4xUPpBB/ OJJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwN4kXIwfPrfqPK6EfE27SdNO7xIWqhXnEYrEdsPvnEs7gCsxrLVSmzLV2MPWujA4I9TD5WFsUOb5/Htyw== X-Received: by 10.37.64.201 with SMTP id n192mr3699815yba.32.1472571909628; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:45:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.61.6 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5fd67461-a474-7ab5-3201-54fb1d5887e0@mozilla.org> References: <5fd67461-a474-7ab5-3201-54fb1d5887e0@mozilla.org> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:45:08 -0700 Message-ID: To: Gervase Markham Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c044b094919d053b4bdde1 Archived-At: Cc: Ryan Sleevi , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dbound] DBOUND and paths forward X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:06:03 -0000 --001a11c044b094919d053b4bdde1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > This group seems like the correct collection of people who could solve > this problem by proposing changes to the Internet infrastructure, and > I'm very sad that the current plan is not to solve it. :-| I suspect > that if it's not solved formally, it'll end up being solved informally > using some half-assed definition on a wiki page somewhere of the correct > magic TXT records you need to add to your DNS so that someone's crawler > will notice your boundaries and automatically update some copies of some > PSL-like thing somewhere. > > I have the same fear. However, the working group spent a long time in what's essentially a deadlocked state trying to find a way to solve both "sides" of this problem. Although there were people (including me) who would like to see some omnibus solution to the general problem, we do need to either show progress or shut down. Absent sustained energy to solve the general problem, we need to go with the problem space we can reasonably solve in a reasonable time frame. -MSK --001a11c044b094919d053b4bdde1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@moz= illa.org> wrote:
This group seems like the corre= ct collection of people who could solve
this problem by proposing changes to the Internet infrastructure, and
I'm very sad that the current plan is not to solve it. :-| I suspect that if it's not solved formally, it'll end up being solved informa= lly
using some half-assed definition on a wiki page somewhere of the correct magic TXT records you need to add to your DNS so that someone's crawler=
will notice your boundaries and automatically update some copies of some PSL-like thing somewhere.


I have th= e same fear.=C2=A0 However, the working group spent a long time in what'= ;s essentially a deadlocked state trying to find a way to solve both "= sides" of this problem.=C2=A0 Although there were people (including me= ) who would like to see some omnibus solution to the general problem, we do= need to either show progress or shut down.

Absent sustained energy = to solve the general problem, we need to go with the problem space we can r= easonably solve in a reasonable time frame.

-MSK
--001a11c044b094919d053b4bdde1-- From nobody Tue Aug 30 09:16:19 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9473612D734 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 LEH5vYeFvj9I for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com (mail-yw0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (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 970D512D752 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id z8so13968996ywa.1 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vEjzfN1f9qaEt2uDUcKgZ3AhXuqoBXF1w3axSdOtGmA=; b=XFXrYLuRG2SD5gcQQm907muM4NSpUVEnO2uGDgKeT7kFdQ26Mc4443HZ151foW+ssf t+/imB2JNPvZ4aUYT5q55CKIaivk6N2i/nPsianZmIVHDK0zGMF6v2bmbbxigXXqvEqL kOSsxkynYxbDzZypFqhQhTJWKNAzztMPB7/IrGQ+QksTC6YYHrO7FtCZ27zuQl/7d9ZC dSF7H5sa+ZBG6yD5rFsQldhtZm92zuOi6zgaDhUDLGvrV2rhaSOfjiyC2tmWpFaVWAAE WArThxNVO7zZUH5HY40SPaaIJiZO3KY4HvG8gORlhdEWlzJlJZxcRbZw1v2i2AwFKc5q 3E2Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vEjzfN1f9qaEt2uDUcKgZ3AhXuqoBXF1w3axSdOtGmA=; b=E1f1VUwBKBQa4eX1yzyRj1F7IQYZzje6Ephp5u5A1zC/X2BMmuo4V+Kez/o3cvqG0L iabi7QQDtdmm5B0CzHKcnKfM+N7HVeJ+HTlFGU8IvbeEE/BgAFF37jkkpEQ/UkbyeSnY R/aBNLTDGu1h+EeD6x3ipU2qeQ1z9CoAZ7sYbivRIWb4pMdZAqYN0GKNdoj4ue0yv+4k 7niboouwJUyoEAOpqqoHSVuFLh32QHcRRxZUl1VroMMU5OZlZ7Zw1hGyILciZP1+hN+L DBiJfMSVCRGd7KC7Yx7aKo2zl8ZqgxUe0GFq31FkqgBoEnJmfMloLeQcVn7wUDLLsUY+ P1ww== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNUZsXC3Bvo2uMj4lJGnfWHRZRFlMxga9aLqWNPPbQ+evyN4UcI5A1pUt/oMFn/168D7nib2wR7RyVuLw== X-Received: by 10.13.219.13 with SMTP id d13mr3739409ywe.61.1472572601612; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:56:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.61.6 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:56:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:56:41 -0700 Message-ID: To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114fb58cd33ef8053b4c06a8 Archived-At: Subject: [dbound] The proposals before us X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:16:18 -0000 --001a114fb58cd33ef8053b4c06a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 OK, let's get going. It's time to make progress or die. The proposals before us: * ODUP ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deccio-dbound-organizational-domain-policy/ ) * John Levine's proposal ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dbound-dns/) * SOPA ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-domain-policy-authority/) Given that we are now constraining ourselves to dealing with the email case only, do we have a clear preference for one of these to adopt and develop? As I recall, we (especially the authors) all had homework to review these under this new scope constraint and provide critical feedback with a goal of making a selection of some kind for the working group to develop. Does anyone have such comments to get us moving here? -MSK --001a114fb58cd33ef8053b4c06a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Given that we are now cons= training ourselves to dealing with the email case only, do we have a clear = preference for one of these to adopt and develop?=C2=A0 As I recall, we (es= pecially the authors) all had homework to review these under this new scope= constraint and provide critical feedback with a goal of making a selection= of some kind for the working group to develop.=C2=A0 Does anyone have such= comments to get us moving here?

-MSK
--001a114fb58cd33ef8053b4c06a8-- From nobody Tue Aug 30 18:14:32 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59C012D856 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:14:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 Vilc0klHRNal for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4435912D861 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from healthyao-PC (unknown [218.241.103.65]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0BpcPxvL8ZXgvkNAA--.6765S2; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:14:23 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:14:18 +0800 From: "Jiankang Yao" To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , dbound References: X-Priority: 3 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2016083109135873899321@cnnic.cn> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart365127301465_=----" X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0BpcPxvL8ZXgvkNAA--.6765S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWrKFyDGFW7Xr4kZr1fuF18AFb_yoWDCwb_ua ykWry5Xw1kurs7KFyrArZxta90grW2gFn7AryDXr1a934kA3Z7trZrtrZrXa43Jan3C3WD GFWSy345try3ujkaLaAFLSUrUUUUjb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUb38YjsxI4VWDJwAYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l1xkIjI8I 6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM2 8CjxkF64kEwVA0rcxSw2x7M28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVW8JVW5JwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0 cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26r4UJVWxJr1l84ACjcxK6I 8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4UJVWxJr1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG6xAI xVCFxsxG0wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6x CaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lc2xS Y4AK67AK6w4l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4 xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17 MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I 0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v2 6r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l6VACY4xI67k04243AbIYCTnIWI evJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU22YLDUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dryyw6fq0xffof0/ Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dbound] The proposals before us X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: yaojk List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 01:14:31 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart365127301465_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQpBbm90aGVyIHByb3Bvc2FsOiANCiAgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvYXJjaGl2ZS9pZC9k cmFmdC15YW8tZGJvdW5kLWRucy1zb2x1dGlvbi0wMi50eHQgDQoNCg0KDQoNCkppYW5rYW5nIFlh bw0KDQpGcm9tOiBNdXJyYXkgUy4gS3VjaGVyYXd5DQpEYXRlOiAyMDE2LTA4LTMwIDIzOjU2DQpU bzogZGJvdW5kQGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbZGJvdW5kXSBUaGUgcHJvcG9zYWxzIGJlZm9y ZSB1cw0KT0ssIGxldCdzIGdldCBnb2luZy4gIEl0J3MgdGltZSB0byBtYWtlIHByb2dyZXNzIG9y IGRpZS4NCg0KDQpUaGUgcHJvcG9zYWxzIGJlZm9yZSB1czoNCg0KDQoqIE9EVVAgKGh0dHBzOi8v ZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWRlY2Npby1kYm91bmQtb3JnYW5pemF0aW9u YWwtZG9tYWluLXBvbGljeS8pDQoNCiogSm9obiBMZXZpbmUncyBwcm9wb3NhbCAoaHR0cHM6Ly9k YXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtbGV2aW5lLWRib3VuZC1kbnMvKQ0KDQoqIFNP UEEgKGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXN1bGxpdmFuLWRvbWFp bi1wb2xpY3ktYXV0aG9yaXR5LykNCg0KDQpHaXZlbiB0aGF0IHdlIGFyZSBub3cgY29uc3RyYWlu aW5nIG91cnNlbHZlcyB0byBkZWFsaW5nIHdpdGggdGhlIGVtYWlsIGNhc2Ugb25seSwgZG8gd2Ug aGF2ZSBhIGNsZWFyIHByZWZlcmVuY2UgZm9yIG9uZSBvZiB0aGVzZSB0byBhZG9wdCBhbmQgZGV2 ZWxvcD8gIEFzIEkgcmVjYWxsLCB3ZSAoZXNwZWNpYWxseSB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycykgYWxsIGhhZCBo b21ld29yayB0byByZXZpZXcgdGhlc2UgdW5kZXIgdGhpcyBuZXcgc2NvcGUgY29uc3RyYWludCBh bmQgcHJvdmlkZSBjcml0aWNhbCBmZWVkYmFjayB3aXRoIGEgZ29hbCBvZiBtYWtpbmcgYSBzZWxl Y3Rpb24gb2Ygc29tZSBraW5kIGZvciB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB0byBkZXZlbG9wLiAgRG9l cyBhbnlvbmUgaGF2ZSBzdWNoIGNvbW1lbnRzIHRvIGdldCB1cyBtb3ZpbmcgaGVyZT8NCg0KDQot TVNL ------=_001_NextPart365127301465_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
 
Another proposal:
  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution-= 02.txt=20
 
Jiankang Yao
 
Date: 2016-08-30 23:56
Subject: [dbound] The proposals before us
* John Levine's proposal (https:/= /datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dbound-dns/)
*=20 SOPA (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-domain-policy-auth= ority/)

Given=20 that we are now constraining ourselves to dealing with the email case only= , do=20 we have a clear preference for one of these to adopt and develop?  As= I=20 recall, we (especially the authors) all had homework to review these under= this=20 new scope constraint and provide critical feedback with a goal of making a= =20 selection of some kind for the working group to develop.  Does anyone= have=20 such comments to get us moving=20 here?

-MSK
------=_001_NextPart365127301465_=------