Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:52:03 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document.  A few minor clarifying comments that may help this
document:

   o  Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively
      Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489].  They control
      all subdomains of the tree.  These are effectively private
      domains, but listed in the current public suffix list.  They are
      treated as Public for DMARC purposes.  They require the same
      protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently
      unable to benefit from DMARC.

I found this paragraph confusing.  In "These are effectively private domains",
it wasn't clear to me what "these" refers to.  Is it the domains or the
subdomains.   Otherwise it says "these are effectively" twice, with two
different descriptions.  ​Perhaps, check if this paragraph can be reworded to
make it clearer.

  ​These
  ​issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since they (e.g., the
  ​".gov.example" used above) do not typically send mail.
  ​
I presume that this means that emails are not directly sent from @gov.example,
rather than there is no mail below .gov.example.  Perhaps worth clarifying?

    For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there
   is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records.  This
   is a broader definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020].

I presume that this means that there is no response for any of A, AAAA and MX
records, not that there is no response for a particular type of record.  Should
this be clarified? Although arguably it seems pretty obvious.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:12:49 -0400

Robert,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:52 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> different descriptions.  Perhaps, check if this paragraph can be reworded
> to
> make it clearer.

How about instead of
"These are effectively private domains, but listed in the current public
suffix list." to
"Branded PSDs are private domains currently listing in the public suffix
list."

Would that work?

>
>   These
>   issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since they (e.g., the
>   ".gov.example" used above) do not typically send mail.
>

Would this clarify things better?

"These issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since the PSD itself
(e.g., the ".gov.example" used above)
does not typically send mail. "

> this be clarified? Although arguably it seems pretty obvious.
I think adding more here will muddy the waters.  I am willing to be swayed.

tim