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

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:38:24 -0700

Roman Danyliw 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Sandra Murphy for the SECDIR review.  Please review those proposed
clarifying edits.

** Section 4.1
Due to the inherent Privacy and Security risks associated with PSD
   DMARC for Organizational Domains in multi-organization PSDs that do
   not particpate in DMARC, any Feedback Reporting related to multi-
   organizational PSDs MUST be limited to non-existent domains except in
   cases where the reporter knows that PSO requires use of DMARC.

Is there any guidance on how the reporter might know “that [the] PSO requires
use of DMARC”.

** Section B.2.
-- Please define the semantics of the “status” column and the expected/possible
values

-- Reconcile the differences between the initial values noted in this this
document and those at http://psddmarc.org/registry.html: o the text in this
section says “current” for the status column, but the html page has same values
as set to “active”

o the PSD names in the initial values of this document are of the form “.*”,
but the html page has no leading dot (i.e., “.bank” vs. “bank”)