Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 18 April 2016 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5494912D6AF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gaws8HVBt2MI for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D1E12DA42 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id t129so220951828vkg.2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Y6Nz5heH0jmDeuM6nmqpan4bBa519jxVdCutalZswbY=; b=oTGB+EUYMCkmM/rPLwM8jFOaVheYOp+rJ2KGes2ph6kiwWgThH9szKwd56wtdOA3z4 zRgqOz9O0160vgLXxGBvOH65HUl67p4W2pB/Cdnkf9HZFTsSCVzFnaQPW1uUx5P86X4Y IVykUjr/OAjKHRwRJ2V/LDZKfdsqnzoimbWN1GKAe/BEz4Am9IEshckCXiyGOSUcvBhq UYYAgaAhi3PbPP1MkAW7n+gLqOGpJe4GfmCbsfXt71nXl75rwZLSAleNqxZlhOrixnbu voma9RbA/yKr2HwN4yPikhg6Rala62FpYBcTVg/wqmp7D31iHbRSqRWo6vV6fIoD/LzI FFsA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Y6Nz5heH0jmDeuM6nmqpan4bBa519jxVdCutalZswbY=; b=S9eLUX9eT0rwEx96ravkk/YXEm/Wceo3U6uhPn6BX1jETHQGINMmoc/piYUM60BHDZ oAupVj8XB4JCzCu/52MaEW/IIUR4wJHPEI5jRLPDx9yWlJbE1hWiVQrMfAdWN/KGJcce vR2eZhnFvgQYuxC9f6q+DELNIVxXSQ5hzB7B8VWxg7SVP8Ha13g2ETR2hQDd+hKquhfk o1XK9bVNjc/lR5lXZ3LzO/u2nT97TYaYDGydVloycMyUcL8ets2ZSAUv4RMSTIGp26XZ pPLPSxOzAkeF/fiJf8F0JZ5RGzeF+qmORM2BKdV+zHNVduSEC10iODWs5I76PuFDbKTW M4cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV+5lp0oYPKCbwqK7SxVzlAao68NAnITEBivaZXxOWsFf/yVGqSH7SBAuXeuE9Ic723fGqojNTlmL4KZw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.54.139 with SMTP id d133mr18505554vka.132.1460987928153; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.43.5 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5714C32C.6000905@tana.it>
References: <CAL0qLwaGuz-CBMke3BhjfLwn7Bt213XobrOUe3_hAqxMZw+PKg@mail.gmail.com> <57025643.7040101@tana.it> <CAL0qLwb_8RN0w03N9P5xQsoC2aJppYTaBidmX_uuvioCJ6CaQg@mail.gmail.com> <5702946B.30307@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZAuVpWj-oDN6cyKiHmnJgpGdtyHKwMfz98v5odBOHTvw@mail.gmail.com> <570E8985.7080708@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa0FqQty+u3eDNQm7MJ_4KrveiyB80ukX3PZmpRARrnfg@mail.gmail.com> <57125854.2030307@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZ5HtDFgoB-BO00zigS4sZP5mOAB+cco1dEjWO-pvHCsA@mail.gmail.com> <A213CB1A-79C1-4766-83A4-CB98A0A2CFF7@kitterman.com> <5714C32C.6000905@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:58:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaY9-xXS_vFkfi_uzU+NXP8powqQmZi+qQUAPv52g0Vwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114383507a95290530c2c25a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/JVizc63SHTi4dYacKgFD1bGlj20>
Cc: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, Matthias Leisi <matthias@leisi.net>, AppsAWG <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:58:55 -0000

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> > If you look at the discussion of iprev in
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7601#section-2.7.3 it covers the exact
> same
> > ground as this proposal with regards to ptype selection.  I believe it's
> > clear that policy is the correct choice.
>
> I guess you mean the paragraph:
>
>    The result is reported using a ptype of "policy" (as this is not part
>    of any established protocol) and a property of "iprev".
>
> That looks like an explanation of the naming, it doesn't seem to mandate
> that
> every ptype must be "policy" unless the related property belongs to an
> established protocol.  The definition of "policy" in Section 2.4 differs.
>

In what way?


> Would a name like, say, client.ip=192.0.2.1 have been an equally valid
> choice?
>

I think it would.


> From that definition it is not clear if or why a method is bound to use at
> most
> one ptype.
>

There is no such restriction.


> My understanding was that RFC7410 allowed to add new ptypes as needed
> without
> having to update the A-R header field name definition each time.  Can you
> envisage what kind of change would be required in order to call A DNS zone
> dns.zone?
>

There would have to be a property of the message derived from the DNS.  The
property you're trying to report, i.e. the name of the DNSWL you queried,
is a local configuration choice rather than something extracted from either
SMTP or the message itself, so it falls squarely within the definition of
"policy".

-MSK