Subject: [dmarc-ietf] A tweak to draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:06:08 -0800

It occurs to me on review that this draft refers to Organizational Domain,
and probably some other terms, without defining them or expressly importing
them from RFC7489.  In particular Section 2.3 refers to the OD with no
prior definition.

Maybe: Insert a new Section 2.2 (pushing others down) that explicitly
refers to RFC7489 Section 3.2, or more generally points out that this
document uses terms defined in that one.

This doesn't have to be done now; Scott, you can wait until IETF LC has
ended if you like, unless you have other nits pending to be posted.

-MSK

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 14:16:28 -0500

If we're going down the road of definitions, RFC8499 defines what a "Public
suffix" is
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8499#page-28

Which could assist in the Public Suffix Domain definition here.
If this makes sense, I can offer some suggested text

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:06 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:19:27 -0800

I'm ambivalent at this stage about whether this makes it into the PSD
document, but please someone do add it to the queue for DMARCbis.

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 11:16 AM Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> If we're going down the road of definitions, RFC8499 defines what a
> "Public suffix" is
>> It occurs to me on review that this draft refers to Organizational
>> Domain, and probably some other terms, without defining them or expressly
>> importing them from RFC7489.  In particular Section 2.3 refers to the OD
>> with no prior definition.
>>

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:59:44 -0800

> If this makes sense, I can offer some suggested text

No, that does not help. RFC8499 just refers back to RFC6265 section 5.3
which in turn invokes the PSL - that's Dave's problem with DMARC in the
first place.

I think that Murray's suggestion about importing definitions from DMARC
(RFC7489) makes much more sense than forking elsewhere since this is a riff
on DMARC.

--Kurt

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:43:02 -0500

> (RFC7489) makes much more sense than forking elsewhere since this is a riff

I think the only thing that might be missing is explicitly importing the term 
organizational domain from RFC 7489.  I think it wouldn't hurt to add it, but 
I don't think it's needed.  As early as the second sentence of the 
introduction the draft is discussing organizational domain and clearly in a 
DMARC context (even with an RFC 7489 reference).  I don't think there's any 
real risk a reader of the draft would be confused.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:08:39 -0800

> real risk a reader of the draft would be confused.

OK, but I get to say "I told you so" if it comes up in a DISCUSS comment
later.  :-)

-MSK