Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08
review-ietf-dmarc-psd-08-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-04-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-04-08
Requested 2020-03-18
Authors Scott Kitterman , Tim Wicinski
Draft last updated 2020-04-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Sandra L. Murphy (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Qin Wu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dmarc-psd-08-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-04-01
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/m1gc194W2KxexISg-ieSIQ2yj74
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-04-01
review-ietf-dmarc-psd-08-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-04-01-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document defines DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting,
and Conformance) extension to enable DMARC functionality for Public Suffix
Domains. It allows operators of Public Suffix Domains (PSDs) to express policy
at the level of the PSD that covers all organizational domains that do not
explicitly publish DMARC records.

Major issue:
Not found

Minor issue:
This document provide two registries, one is update of DMARC Tag Registry with
one new element, requested from IANA, the other is DMARC PSD registry
maintained by [psddmarc.org] and following IANA registry style, I see one is
standard registry, the other is non-standard registry, it is not clear to me
non-standard registry should be discussed in this document, which introduce
confusion, if we keep both, I am wondering why section 6 still requests to add
an element to standard registry, which functionality we add is experimental,
which functionality is not.

Second related question, this draft updates informational RFC7489 with
additional components and rules, should the front page of this Experimental RFC
reflect this or not? Nits: Section 1 Somewhere subdommains is used, somewhere
sub-dommains is used, please be consistent. Section 3.5 said: "Specifically,
this is
   not a mechanism to provide feedback addresses (RUA/RUF) when an
   Organizational Domain has declined to do so.
"
Should a reference be added to RUA/RUF, RUA/RUF needs to be expanded or add
abbreviation section in the terminology section.

Section 3.2
 OLD TEXT:
"
If the 'np' tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the 'sp'
tag is present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag, if the 'sp' tag is not
present, MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. " NEW TEXT: " If the 'np'
tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the 'sp' tag is
present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag( if the 'sp' tag is not present
and ‘p’tag is present), MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. " Section
3.2 Change section 3.2 title from "3.2.  Section 6.3 General Record Format" To
3.2.  Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format" Similar changes can be
applicable to other places.