On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:24 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tim, > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > COMMENT: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > This document is generally in pretty good shape; my comments (and, > > > to some extent, my discuss as well) are pretty minor points. > > > > > > Thanks to Sandra Murphy for the secdir review. I think there were some > > > questions in there that are worth a response and possibly > clarifications > > > in the document. > > > > > > > > Sandra did a strong review and I believe we worked through the issues > > raised. > > I'm happy to hear it; I may have just been misled by the mailarchive entry > for the secdir list. > There was a Large GENART review that had us rework several sections which were ones that Sandra had also mentioned. I will go back and read her email again just to make sure. > > > > > Section 1.2 > > > > > > It seems like the "branded PSD" and "multi-organization PSD" cases > would > > > benefit from a protocol-level indication and separate handling by > > > message recipients. It seems likely that the newly defined np (in > > > combination with the preexisting sp) provides the flexibility to > > > describe the different cases, but it seems like it would be helpful to > > > have some discussion in this document that relates these two cases to > > > the actual protocol mechanisms used to achieve them. > > > > > > > > There is no different handling of between a "Branded PSD" and a > > "multi-organization PSD". The difference is highlighting the types. > > I think I agree that the actual mechanics of handling the protocol > elements, if they exist, shouldn't really differ for the two cases. It > seems that there may be some subjective differences, though, in that it > would be really surprising if the "multi-organizational PSD" decided to > publish policy for existant subdomains, whereas for branded PSDs that is > normal and expected, since in some sense they really ought not be PSDs at > all. > Consider the case of the bad actor attempting to publish a "multi-organizational PSD" policy for purposes of pervasive monitoring. One of the reasons for the registry is to prevent such actions. > > > > > > Section 4.1 > > > > > > o Multi-organization PSDs (e.g., ".com") that do not mandate DMARC > > > usage: Privacy risks for Organizational Domains that have not > > > deployed DMARC within such PSDs are significant. For non-DMARC > > > Organizational Domains, all DMARC feedback will be directed to > the > > > PSO. PSD DMARC is opt-out (by publishing a DMARC record at the > > > Organizational Domain level) vice opt-in, which would be the more > > > desirable characteristic. This means that any non-DMARC > > > organizational domain would have its feedback reports redirected > > > to the PSO. The content of such reports, particularly for > > > existing domains, is privacy sensitive. > > > > > > It might be worth making some statement about the applicability of PSD > > > DMARC for such PSDs that do not mandate DMARC usage. (I guess the > > > following paragraphs mostly play that role, though perhaps editorially > > > tying them together more clearly is possible.) > > > > > > > I'm not sure where you're going on this, but the following paragraphs do > > try to pull it together. I've been trying to wordsmith these with little > > luck. > > > > Also, it appears that the word "vice" above should be "versus". > > I suspected it might :) > > Maybe the following is useful input to your wordsmithing attempts: > > By definition the new mechanisms in this document result in PSDs receiving > feedback on non-existent domains. However, these non-existent domains may > be similar to existing Organizational Domains, and as mentioned above, > feedback on existing organizational domains is privacy-sensitive. To > minimize the risk of privacy-sensitive information relating to existing > organizational domains being sent to the parent as feedback on a similar > non-existent domain, PSD DMARC feedback MUST be limited to Aggregate > Reports. Feedback Reports carry more detailed information and present a > greater risk. > Thanks. I'm want to also see what the working group thinks/feels on the current text and your suggestions. > > > > > > > Or, in the vein of my comment on section 1.2, an explicit protocol > > > mechanism could be introduced that limits the reporting to just the > > > indicated (public suffix) domain and does not apply to subdomains. > > > > > > organizational PSDs MUST be limited to non-existent domains except > in > > > cases where the reporter knows that PSO requires use of DMARC. > > > > > > Do we have examples of how the reporter might come to know this? > > > Say ... Appendix B.2? > > > > > > > > Roman raised a similiar point. I was thinking of adding > > "(by checking the DMARC PSD Registry)" > > > > or would a full sentence be used to bring the point back home? > > I don't see a need for a full sentence. I would check whether an "e.g." is > warranted, vs the registry being the only way to do so. > Okay, I'll add this and will figure out the "e.g." > > > Appendix B.1 > > > > > > A sample stand-alone DNS query service is available at > > > [psddmarc.org]. It was developed based on the contents suggested > for > > > > > > "DNS query service" is so generic so as to be almost meaningless. Even > > > if we defer usage instructions to the external site, we should probably > > > say a bit more about what it is expected to do. > > > > > I tend to agree with you here. The only other options I could come > > up with is "PSD DMARC Lookup service". I'll try a few others. > I am leaning toward "DNS Lookup service", which fits into my DNS world view. tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
