Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification-00.txt

From: Takehito Akagiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 23:21:55 +0900

As Kouji mentioned on Sep 21st (JST), we updated our Internet-draft.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification-01

We have updated the draft based on comments on ML when we submitted draft
00.  I'll show small comments about that.

1. Remove roadmap section.

Our main proposal is using potential PASS. Many guys gave comments about
“reject”. So we cut the section about roadmap so as to simplify our
argument.

2. Add use case

- Add Microsoft’s case mentioned by Terry.
- Contribution to domain reputation based on authenticated one.

3. Name of the verification.

We did not change the name of this method. If you have any ideas, please
show them continuously such as DMARC Lite and BestGuessDMARC. Refer to
discussion section.

4. Authentication-results status

PASS, BestGuessPass or some others should be better. Refer to discussion
section.

5. Where to document

I think RFC is one of the better choices.  In case that the status of
“DMARC Virtual Verification” is PASS,  “DMARC” is always PASS if DMARC
record exists. That is different from “Best Guess SPF”.

6. About the opinion that DAMRC is opt-in protocol

What is the problem if receiver do “virtual verification” following this
draft? We cut roadmap section, so no risk for sender in case of “p=none”.
Receiver can use PASS information to evaluate senders. This is the merit
for receivers and no risk for senders.

We will update this draft again before IETF 97 so any comments would
greatly help.

Best regards,
―Takehito Akagiri <[email-masked]>