On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:38 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Thanks. I believe we've gone over all of them. > > ** 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”. > In the above paragraphs in this section, it defines Multi-organization PSDs that require DMARC usage and Multi-organization PSDs that do not require DMARC usage. Any Advice? > > ** Section B.2. > -- Please define the semantics of the “status” column and the > expected/possible > values > This is defined in RFC7489, Section 11.4. I added the following text: The "Status" column is defined in <xref target="RFC7489"/>Section 11.4. > -- 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”) > > Thanks, I've reached out to have this corrected tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
