IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] BIMI/DMARC & PSL vs Tree-walk

Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> Fri, 19 May 2023 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jothan@jothan.com>
X-Original-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23925C151079 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2023 19:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jothan-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlDpX8ri2f7r for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2023 19:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC88C151084 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2023 19:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7577f03e131so157833385a.0 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2023 19:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jothan-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1684463389; x=1687055389; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gjaX1/ez33bXimVLXwisU6RN0SZ9ePsTBvVcX3hD4HY=; b=2l1QsQrwkXcJ811n5ntFH++bs03jx/N/x/ZwhhGvPW95R2zaawBacUZxG11+44TUnq iKEwhdJi3VyZZag136+kfxb8Vgze5or/TPHdJxQR8EAmJIJ26GKGwGyUQH+PHWKPAAxE 5osP90+DrTMx65ibGgV/8t5OQHDQMLx+qcu8+Srs7SkStR9uRfFM5Is9Yh/tvnhR7mSm xg54947E3CNC1KLhaxpdZ82/T+2bTPrDzXnZH3I6M9gVW879xzDH2s5moxd8q6FT98Nz SIG5cvr0kNxbVkPefoqd5L1Rs4RyIdEsRS4RGJr8c2b9qYxgkpsvTj9imno7WgqXj9rq XAZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684463389; x=1687055389; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=gjaX1/ez33bXimVLXwisU6RN0SZ9ePsTBvVcX3hD4HY=; b=kzhfTwd7KSd9785cTpPY4LKgrrfkjM8ZBYnRgneahvw4l8nr4o+XYxItMo6YwO6MCe 6ObHRtk/cuN3s1MoByXN0Kdi+8AmciQbfq9i3qA0VGTNiQUVq19k3SnDi871bhgt6T1R kIJBI9cPMzL2MCpSWmHNxoJcICp+lR40NfVq2v1BzgMKcJtyZEl4Zggt+0s3SGXtI/kk Yduha+hSUYimsIhLAz+pZfp+nBbjU7QW2Y/T8LTofvtleG1Y99feCBEvJI++SIZ9gGrH qxdfqsazUpvN4a+s7O/G/41DOHRmxlHQPYITS+S/uk651+Wf2mVpuWzPAJqXBCNr4Fnz 2AMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxCB5i0w0UcS9vmjRAEjEv0WTIDZoqbHv7OBV4MUnD9e6FE1d9l 4ShR4kOgMz27LjeXq5ySAYQFvRnlEmwUu83tSPOFsLQySLIXjj7N
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4QpIsnVPp874qvAVrSlpp/RVf7FnjAsNdyPeuJ1Ouv5SFkk5/OGEimVK6GWtrnT5hWCOiO+g3nUVYExDXIoDg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:f61:b0:623:4ca9:5b25 with SMTP id iy1-20020a0562140f6100b006234ca95b25mr2337862qvb.31.1684463388923; Thu, 18 May 2023 19:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB4351AF35F579FBC34B97D7A6F7759@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <535f1c438cc05398875f30b857725722@mail.gmail.com> <SJ0PR14MB548973DF9B3D6A7FAC130C30837F9@SJ0PR14MB5489.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR14MB548973DF9B3D6A7FAC130C30837F9@SJ0PR14MB5489.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 19:29:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGrS0FLWRw_zQz=39XruZpaQF82T4ir74UDp8fkUWYxvWm9m5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek=40digicert.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Ken O'Driscoll <ken@kenodriscoll.com>, "Brotman, Alex" <Alex_Brotman=40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "BIMI (IETF)" <bimi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ef29dc05fc02b131"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/MwS_oVM43nJhKmkt4lv9tAL1wps>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] BIMI/DMARC & PSL vs Tree-walk
X-BeenThere: bimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Brand Indicators for Message Identification <bimi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bimi/>
List-Post: <mailto:bimi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 02:29:54 -0000

+1

Sounds good.   This "Tree Walk" - I have been calling it an "up-walk", as
it iterates closer to the rightmost dot until it finds its apex when we
have been discussing this approach in DBOUND.   DMARC is a great use for
this "up-walk" approach, as there is tremendous context in the headers and
a limited number of domain name variations involved in the iteration.
Reducing the use of the PSL in places it has narrowly defined and specific
uses like DMARC is something that is very very appreciated.

-J
Jothan Frakes



On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:00 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek=
40digicert.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
> > The DMARC WG moved away from using the PSL for very valid reasons that
> > probably don't need to be rehashed here. Those reasons are equally valid
> for
> > BIMI. I think that BIMI should follow suit and use whatever mechanism
> > DMARC uses to determine the organisational domain.
>
> +1
>
> -Tim
>
> --
> bimi mailing list
> bimi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email