Re: [dmarc-ietf] spec nit - which DKIM to report

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 21 June 2019 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33E212036D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=lWMQ8+kP; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=A8f83fT5
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 KgqGwO-qwiHV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CE1D1203B5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22232 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2019 19:11:44 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=56d6.5d0d2bf0.k1906; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=rctmPncb86FiKbd8XnAiCKuCVjtMM/D0g+NBYmWWXF8=; b=lWMQ8+kP0litN6mmZYDFjbRvrNcwN3qtXYinHj7bsrzBXpZyFeaXdGcJNcaIBv280jabXXpGt3MT0fq6GhyuJKCi4JfD8GuEQbMVhkUulvU0hgQ7ZfbediRbaIgEL51OGvaXQdg4/xDCUbICzJbe3phcnv4/loDj1gLlTT9c2ribZMaGKnUI/s8yaW+g31rFT/wQHT/InhTREulcFAkKrlgsHcDPIZ7SXSIh5eRWxJK21cXW3UDOtOo7rDfA02k8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=56d6.5d0d2bf0.k1906; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=rctmPncb86FiKbd8XnAiCKuCVjtMM/D0g+NBYmWWXF8=; b=A8f83fT5EwfQLug6F/EGSTpHNgPMfTHN6QM/fFx2Hv+Gqr7RVyzsaIwbHhx9hw56rWBhBwWcHoTcJzZYbtyDdhvLGzckEzWI8AhDZnZKc3zvDYdfrf3IcJ1p1aUWWyey7Dsig0JGOnWkwzRzfGxxzzJdaAbpuoyq10UzpIJDInYWKNhVVAPb1YqkXduo7BpplWCGKNfazTQUa5VKfwUEk/NFtlaPtTZ3WqDTHMDtD05wPZLJC6PA5CsAjcs7DBrU
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 21 Jun 2019 19:11:44 -0000
Date: 21 Jun 2019 15:11:43 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.1906211507430.53840@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Elizabeth Zwicky" <zwicky@otoh.org>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, tki@tomki.com
In-Reply-To: <8C941177-5B45-4B69-A2CB-C774BFB543FD@otoh.org>
References: <20190621184626.AE1B52016298ED@ary.qy> <8C941177-5B45-4B69-A2CB-C774BFB543FD@otoh.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (OSX 337 2019-05-05)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-8CWQeYXZ9TnUAiotebJdX8Tq50>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] spec nit - which DKIM to report
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:11:52 -0000

> I believe they MUST contain any aligned DKIM signature regardless of validity and SHOULD  contain an entry for each domain, selector, result triple.

RFC 7489 says:

    The report SHOULD include the following data:

    o  The DMARC policy discovered and applied, if any

    o  The selected message disposition

    o  The identifier evaluated by SPF and the SPF result, if any

    o  The identifier evaluated by DKIM and the DKIM result, if any

    o  For both DKIM and SPF, an indication of whether the identifier was
       in alignment

(and a bunch of other stuff)

I don't see any basis to change this, since as long as the report's format 
and syntax are correct, it'll interoperate.  It may not have all the hints 
the report's recipient would like, but life is like that.

R's,
John