Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread Barry Leiba
>> > I'm at a loss to understand what's confusing. I'm not convinced that >> > "registrations" in the >> > context of domain names is unclear to a reader familiar with this space. >> >> I am absolutely convinced that it is. Think of people in M3AAWG, for >> whom this is very relevant. Many of t

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread Ken O'Driscoll
I would go even further and not even talk about the trees and nodes. Also, echoing elsewhere in this thread, making it really clear that this is not a case of DMARC is coming for your TLD. So, I’d propose something super basic like this for the second paragraph: Domain name suffixes (for examp

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread Dave Crocker
Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all those terms mean and how they are all related. yes. But it's worse than that.  The current language is not automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS administration. As is being noted, I too thin

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread Douglas Foster
So what is the best nomenclature for referring to the "ICANN-authorized registries"? Dave's phrase or something else? On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 10:26 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > > >>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what > all those terms mean and > >>> how they are al

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread Dave Crocker
On 2/22/2021 7:49 AM, Douglas Foster wrote: So what is the best nomenclature for referring to the "ICANN-authorized registries"?   Dave's phrase or something else? Strictly speaking co.uk is not ICAN-authorized.  It's authorized by mechanisms internal to the UK. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread ned+dmarc
>>> Actually that's a community that I would expect to know exactly what all those terms mean and >>> how they are all related. yes. But it's worse than that.  The current language is not automatically clear even for folk with good knowledge about DNS administration. As is being noted, I

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread Douglas Foster
That does not answer the question. We can only clarify the registration question by clarifying what entity's registration mechanism is in scope. Do we simply say that this document applies to registrations occurring immediately below an entry on the PSL? On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 11:14 AM Dave Crock

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-10.txt

2021-02-22 Thread Ken O'Driscoll
On Monday 22 February 2021 16:14, Dave Crocker wrote: > Strictly speaking co.uk is not ICAN-authorized.  It's authorized by > mechanisms internal to the UK. > None of the ccTLDs registry operators would call or consider themselves "ICANN-authorized". The original authorisation to use the namespa

[dmarc-ietf] Announcement - DMARC bis Design Team

2021-02-22 Thread Seth Blank
On 27 October 2020, in post https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qtCDyGbeDHz96G8FaCxJvhJKrvo/ the chairs announced a split of RFC7489 into three documents, to be scoped as follows: - The DMARC Base Spec (editors - Emil Gustafsson, Todd Herr, and John Levine) - Aggregate Reporting

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Announcement - DMARC bis Design Team

2021-02-22 Thread Tim Wicinski
Thanks for sending this out Seth. folks are free to contact the chairs and our AD if they have questions, concerns. tim On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Seth Blank wrote: > On 27 October 2020, in post > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qtCDyGbeDHz96G8FaCxJvhJKrvo/ > the chairs ann

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Announcement - DMARC bis Design Team

2021-02-22 Thread Dotzero
So I'm assuming there won't be anything to talk about at the next IETF meeting. Michael Hammer On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Seth Blank wrote: > On 27 October 2020, in post > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qtCDyGbeDHz96G8FaCxJvhJKrvo/ > the chairs announced a split of RFC7489 in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Announcement - DMARC bis Design Team

2021-02-22 Thread tjw ietf
We’re working on canceling the meeting. Tim Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 22, 2021, at 16:59, Dotzero wrote: > >  > So I'm assuming there won't be anything to talk about at the next IETF > meeting. > > Michael Hammer > >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Seth Blank >> wrote: >> On 27 Oct