Subject: [dmarc-ietf] draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-04 Release Notes

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 15:51:16 -0500

Greetings.

This message serves to announce that draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-04 will be
available for review and comment within minutes after this message hits the
list.

Everything in this version is intended to be seen as proposed text, meant
to foster on-list discussion, and I expect that there will be rather lively
discussion about some of the sections in this revision. Please keep the
discussion civil, and propose alternative text to replace any text you find
objectionable. Ideally, discussion threads focused on specific sections of
text will be identified through use of the section number and title in the
subject line for the thread, but I recognize that this won't always happen.

Here is a summary of the major differences between this revision and
draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03:

   - A 'psd' tag is proposed, with values of 'y' or 'n' (default is 'n').
   The purpose of this tag is for Public Suffix Domains to announce themselves
   as PSDs in their DMARC record, an idea that was discussed on-list in the
   thread with the subject "Organizational Alignment Options". Thread starts
   here -
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/W07Sqvw6fm1VWD4VnNyJOK9GlGY/ -
   and it's option four in the list in that message.
   - The DNS Tree Walk is introduced, using text proposed by Scott
   Kitterman here -
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/iOuQzCPlD99dxqt8_q-9C1gl24o/ -
   and the tree walk is recommended as the method to be used both for policy
   discovery and for identifying the Organizational Domain. The old method for
   discovering the Org Domain is preserved in Appendix A.
   - Several existing sections have been re-worked, shifting the order of
   paragraphs to make the document flow better in my opinion, and/or altering
   the hierarchy of sections, making some sub-sections of others where
   previously they were peers, and/or wordsmithing here and there. There was
   no intent to change the meaning of the text in question; these changes were
   made in the interests of improved clarity and consistency of phrasing.
   - The change log (Appendix C) has been removed, because even though
   there are only two new ideas introduced, there is enough shifting of text
   to make this revision effectively a reboot.

The point here is that I think this is a good baseline rev to use to
re-focus on-list discussion and move forward with our core work to update
the DMARC protocol.

As the list ramps up their discussion of this revision of the spec, I'll be
at work pursuing an idea that was touched on during the last working
session at IETF 112, namely that of possibly moving the definition of
Organizational Domain and related topics to a separate document. Having
those topics in their own document will make the base DMARC spec simpler
and provide a normative reference for use not only by the DMARC spec but
also any other documents that might make use of the same concepts in the
future.

Thank you for reading...

-- 

*Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem
*e:* [email-masked]
*m:* 703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 20:10:12 -0800

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:51 PM Todd Herr <todd.herr=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> The change log (Appendix C) has been removed, because even though there
> are only two new ideas introduced, there is enough shifting of text to make
> this revision effectively a reboot.
>

No objection to that change, but this leads me to a suggestion: A section,
or an appendix, summarizing what's different between this version of DMARC
and the one described in RFC 7489 might be of benefit, especially to people
who implemented the older specification and might be looking to be sure
they didn't miss anything when updating.

-MSK

---

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:03:04 -0500

> they didn't miss anything when updating.
That sounds like a fine idea for future revs of the document.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/123

--