Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:29 AM John Levine wrote:
> In article <4666d39f-85f5-4ad2-a754-11fed0a5c...@kitterman.com> you write:
> >Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't think it's possible to actually
> make this clear to anyone that isn't familiar
> >with RFC 7489 without essentially turning this into a proto 7489bis.
>
> I agree. Hence my suggestion last week to tear out all of the TLD
> stuff or move it into an appendix and just say this is the name above
> the Organizational domain which you can find into RFC 7489.
>
> The reality is that any of the 8000 domains in the PSL could publish a
> PSD record, and I would not want to try to explain to anyone in the
> IESG why most of them are there. So let's stay as far away from that
> as possible. Policy Super Domain, remember?
After an initial "that's too cutesy" reaction, I'm becoming more convinced
that John's suggestion ("policy super domain") might indeed be the right
sort of solution - along with clearly citing 7489 in the intro and abstract
("If you don't know what DMARC is, go read RFC 7489 before coming back
here." or similar).
--Kurt
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
In article <4666d39f-85f5-4ad2-a754-11fed0a5c...@kitterman.com> you write: >Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't think it's possible to actually make >this clear to anyone that isn't familiar >with RFC 7489 without essentially turning this into a proto 7489bis. I agree. Hence my suggestion last week to tear out all of the TLD stuff or move it into an appendix and just say this is the name above the Organizational domain which you can find into RFC 7489. The reality is that any of the 8000 domains in the PSL could publish a PSD record, and I would not want to try to explain to anyone in the IESG why most of them are there. So let's stay as far away from that as possible. Policy Super Domain, remember? R's, John ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
On April 16, 2020 3:30:59 AM UTC, Seth Blank wrote: >On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:45 PM Scott Kitterman >wrote: > >> > I think you are very close to an Abstract/Introduction that is >clearly >> > comprehensible to people who are not familiar with DMARC. >> >> Considering this is an extension to DMARC, I don't think that's the >target >> audience. >> > >As an individual: everyone who reads the document stand-alone gets >confused >by this lack of clarity (it's the common thread through all the last >call >reviews so far), and a concise summary up top feels valuable both for >this >evaluation process, and for any future consumers of the document. >Whether >someone's familiar with DMARC or not, if they're reading this document, >what's the harm in spelling it out very clearly, especially if we have >text >that we believe accomplishes this? Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't think it's possible to actually make this clear to anyone that isn't familiar with RFC 7489 without essentially turning this into a proto 7489bis. If you want to add it and are confident we aren't diving into a deep, deep hole, I don't strongly object. Just let me know what to add. Scott K ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
