Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:41:53 -0500

All

During the IESG reviews of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd, there were several issues
raised with some of the document.   Most of them are editorial but the one
big item was the description of the Experiment.   The chairs sat down and
broke out the experiment section into three separate experiments, and
included language on how to capture the data to confirm how the experiment
worked.

It's enough of a change that we wanted to do a second working group last
call to make sure the working group agrees with our changes. The diff of
the current version with the previous version is here:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-09

This starts a *one* week second working group last call for
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Please review the changes and offer up comments to the working group.

This working group last call 20 November 2020

Thanks,

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Nov 2020 15:21:14 -0500

>Please review the changes and offer up comments to the working group.

I looked at it, seems fine as an experiment.

If we end up changing the way regular DMARC looks for Org domains, PSD
might become redundant. Or not.

R's,
John

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:29:16 -0800

> might become redundant. Or not.

I'm going to reiterate that this draft is tightly integrated into DMARC 
and shouldn't be, for all the reasons we've been discussing.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Craig Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:39:54 -0500

Hi Tim,

As fTLD Registry Services (fTLD), registry operator of the .BANK and
.INSURANCE Top-Level Domains, was instrumental in initiating this work
within the IETF in 2018, we are keenly interested in providing any support
or input needed to see it through to its successful conclusion.

fTLD has, in our role as registry operator, mandated specific security
policies/requirements for domain names in our zones inclusive of email
authentication (i.e., DMARC plus SPF when the domain is used for email).
For security and reputational purposes, our interest in protecting our TLDs
extends to NXDOMAINs, which for us come in two “flavors.” The first is
registered domains that are not in the respective zone because they do not
meet the baseline security requirements of having in-zone name servers
(e.g., ns1.bankname.BANK) and being signed with DNSSEC. The second is the
more common unregistered domain name.

As fTLD is prohibited by our contract with ICANN from placing non-approved
DNS resources record types (e.g., TXT records) into the TLD DNS Zone, there
is a process we can pursue with them to seek removal of the prohibition. In
consultations with ICANN that started in 2017, we came to understand that
the existence of an RFC on this topic (i.e., TXT records in the TLD DNS
zone) could help fTLD, and registry operators like ourselves, overcome this
obstacle with ICANN. It is for this reason and to further enhance the
security of our TLDs that we undertook this work within the IETF.

As I’ve shared candidly with Seth Blank, Scott Kitterman, Murray Kucherway
and more recently Tim Wicinski, my expertise is more in the policy arena
than technical and I’ve done all I can to stay abreast of this work,
contribute when appropriate and drive it in any way possible as I said
earlier to it successful conclusion.

At this point I’d appreciate understanding what obstacles remain and what
fTLD, and our internal working group, can do to advance this work.

Thanks very much and good luck this week at IETF.

Craig

*--*
Craig Schwartz
Managing Director
fTLD Registry Services | .BANK & .INSURANCE
Mobile: +1 202 236 1154
Skype: craig-schwartz
www.fTLD.com

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:42 PM Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:39:56 -0800

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:21 PM John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In article <CADyWQ+HWEK=
> [email-masked]> you write:
> >

+1 on both counts.

--Kurt