Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The intended document status is Experimental, which is shown in the title page header.  This status is appropriate for this document because it specifies a development effort that is intended only to collect data as input to a later revision of the main DMARC specification.  The content has enough community support to be worth implementing and testing on live email traffic feeds to test its efficacy in assisting the accuracy and applicability of DMARC.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

   Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
   (DMARC) permits a domain-controlling organization to express domain-
   level policies and preferences for message validation, disposition,
   and reporting, which a mail-receiving organization can use to improve
   mail handling.

   DMARC distinguishes the portion of a name that is a Public Suffix
   Domain (PSD), below which organizational domain names are created.
   The basic DMARC capability allows organizational domains to specify
   policies that apply to their subdomains, but it does not give that
   capability to PSDs.  This document describes an extension to DMARC to
   fully enable DMARC functionality for PSDs.

   Some implementations of DMARC consider a PSD to be ineligible for
   DMARC enforcement.  This specification addresses that case.

Working Group Summary

  The working group came to consensus fairly quickly about this proposal
  because it's fairly minimal, straightforward, and well understood.

Document Quality

There is one implementation already (by the author), and numerous operators have expressed intent to participate, including open source and private operators, once the document is approved.


Murray Kucherawy is the responsible Area Director, though he was the document shepherd at the time this went to IETF Last Call.
Alexey Melnikov is the new document shepherd.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I reviewed the document for both editorial and technical quality.  It has appropriate IANA and Security Considerations sections.  An appropriate WGLC was performed and feedback received was folded in by the author.  The WG secretary also assured that all raised issues were addressed somehow.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

None; ART and SEC reviews are expected in due course, and otherwise enough of the usual IETF email community and participants in M3AAWG also provided input.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No such specialist reviews are needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The community believes there is a strong need for this work.  As ARC was also recently published as experimental (RFC8617), this is a ripe time for considering ecosystem solutions such as this.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No such disclosure has been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There are about 15-20 regular active working group participants, and consensus among them for this experimental document appears to be firm.

The document lingered a bit in post IETF LC editing, which necessitated adding of a new document editor. Version -11 addresses GenArt review. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

No expressions of appeal-level discontent have been observed so far.  However, it is worth noting here that Dave Crocker raised and pressed an objection that the work should not be published without going back to first principles with DMARC itself, which would set the already glacial working group back months.  Given the WG intends to reopen its base document anyway after this experiment is published, that seems like an unnecessary constraint.  In any case, his assertion does not appear to have swayed consensus away from proceeding.

He also contends that an experiment meant to collect data and then be destroyed is not the kind of thing the IETF should be publishing in the first place, since it represents something that could introduce confusion or cruft into the deployed base.  I disagreed with this position because there are existence proofs of Experimental status not observing such constraints.  His objection has not been sustained by the working group generally; one person was concerned about us publishing an experiment of any kind, but this was not enough to give the impression that consensus has eroded.  Nevertheless, the working group is prepared to accept Informational status if the IESG concurs with this objection.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

No ID nits have been identified.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews are needed; this document makes no registrations of media types or other major code points.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No; all referenced documents are published.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure. 

This is an experimental document.  There can only be up-refs.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document describes an experiment.  Should the experiment move to the standards track, it will update RFC7489.  RFC7489 was an Independent Submission and therefore currently has Informational status.  RFC7489 is under review by the DMARC working group, which intends to republish it on to the standards track at some future date.  It will take the results of this experiment as input.  However, this document does not formally modify RFC7489.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

I have reviewed the IANA Considerations section.  It makes a single registration in an extant registry for which Murray is the designated expert.  The section is well-formed and clear.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document creates no new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There is no ABNF, XML, or MIB definition in this document.