Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Timeline for Release of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-5

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 14:48:24 -0500

Greetings.

I've been monitoring the on-list discussion and I would like to take a stab
at incorporating it into the next draft.

My plan is to get a next draft released either Monday, January 31
or Tuesday, February 1, but that will depend on whether or not list
discussion reaches a point where it makes sense to release a new draft.

If anyone thinks that timeline is too aggressive, please let me know.

-- 

*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: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 14:55:06 -0500

I think that draft revisions are cheap, and that it's better to put a
revision out than to hold it for more changes.

Barry

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:49 PM Todd Herr <todd.herr=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Greetings.
>
> I've been monitoring the on-list discussion and I would like to take a
> stab at incorporating it into the next draft.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:27:57 -0800

> revision out than to hold it for more changes.

+1

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[email-masked]
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:32:59 -0500

> If anyone thinks that timeline is too aggressive, please let me know.

I'm definitely in favor of a new draft.

Also, as I mentioned earlier today, I think the dns-tree-walk needs to 
additional words for the reverse walk to find the organizational domain. Patch 
attached.  I think this, with the other patch I sent last night gives us a 
complete, if still somewhat rough description of what's needed to complete the 
org domain discovery part of the document.

I'm sure the words can be improved (and will be), but it'd be nice to get 
these in so we have something that works in the latest draft.

Thanks,

Scott K

diff --git a/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-05.xml b/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-05.xml
index 9dd68a3..6b8f578 100644
--- a/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-05.xml
+++ b/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-05.xml
@@ -490,9 +490,17 @@ labels remaining or a valid DMARC record containing the information sought
 has been retrieved.</t>
 </li>
 </ol>
+<t>For determining the organizational domain used for determining relaxed
+alignment, the same process is followed, except in the reverse order.
+Starting at the top of the DNS tree with a single label, query the DNS for a
+DMARC TXT record until a DMARC record not containing a psd tag with a value of
+'y' is found, the domain to query is the RFC5322.From domain, or the number of
+labels exceeds 4.  If an appropriate DMARC record was found, that domain is
+the Organizational Domain, otherwise the RFC5322.From domain is the
+Organizational Domain.</t>
 <t>To illustrate, for a message with the arbitrary RFC5322.From domain of
 &quot;a.b.c.d.e.mail.example.com&quot;, a full DNS Tree Walk would require the following
-five queries, in order:</t>
+five queries, in order to locate the policy domain:</t>
 
 <ul>
 <li>_dmarc.a.b.c.d.e.mail.example.com</li>