IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 19 August 2021 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 05D493A1862 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 7fzh7qNbiMns for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (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 CB3D93A186C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id l22so4730318vsi.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9VKShJdb5su2lnKC/l3iuXuzDE0hmfk93uudRflutmY=; b=GI378M2OvK4bEDGT2lpoMVNzFsm23G/82bdia9/MfnojqIUxX0bUJra1yGzU+l8k0W l265RBnmWH97bVU1XFV0aFXlIkiGJ2c4GL8rffwuOEAGHC1uJeiOOoeRgR1NjpJrGuue 50JyulkgCAKwOuHh+j9+MTuHOhttpgZdHowQMHuzs6+1NK1weRnc+DDGTvkeFvxAPuvC PSvTdqhQB6Uo26jdoxG7YdQZ3qgzC6SJI9P6BuOWbtwY6SnAKLulFRZ0bmHW4rWwol1u XsTrPToBBqaanXoPrKp2F2ygJLxMqaFYb5Kt1e0Vw/tjkGxO9bqUf9oCvJ7T5NGSizAl S4KA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9VKShJdb5su2lnKC/l3iuXuzDE0hmfk93uudRflutmY=; b=asfn7FNvxrCqk1CrTjPylTCHJzYIYaV1FuJiS4eOgCv6HNeG2Lv+ZPlhIpOn4ytF85 ZVllgEuQZgZC18y/M2aRy1zM6UHLGsFnLPA4NHtoacz21wcy2K43W/gr62g+5uafdZq+ GmSKlS1/7GlxnfgXoQ5uQRfeDXMTobcFV77kKgd7YbSc9eWgzcqRUuZ/oZvsWor2iwbB pspJltaIeA+DH6bP/FtXkTjVvywX5IMvGhES5DjQWkpYPQI3CR20yw3UicItiCwweX1L zYh8Rgq9SpVIl+3f6CCvgb896rpqa4K8nRQnMEnHtScYv5Rt3BrnquCno1/ede5GlT/6 YK+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532JgWa1XSTIjtCJh6JasQ0hQOOCMkjxm7bNsCnD3WU0voOjhmm9 To6K4n1sv6G9PERfLDCl4wiB3omagAVtHPZPiKs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhO7iRLVPP6BnLDljrHtYI+/5JW0vXz4d33PhQ+JA3MYWrFIPXm3JdiIbJ6govK1yLt6xCmaLEDwHkg9jFxzU=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f8d5:: with SMTP id c21mr14246441vsp.40.1629400915234; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162931752865.27585.10197515584988072678@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHej_8mcwKcjwxV09_6ENrOnh5t+seDv_kTZiO0mgyRS2BVgTA@mail.gmail.com> <3e4b2087-a866-6f66-3964-71a3c67eab8b@tana.it> <CAHej_8kVW8daPQhghouneRS37WhaCHo4Os6Ggd43FbOpo=ri6A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8kVW8daPQhghouneRS37WhaCHo4Os6Ggd43FbOpo=ri6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:21:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZjou+Qtr1JHjCmV+jAk1FqicB+zG4KTiRHZOLRHLV5Ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bfe0b105c9ee76b5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-dnbfRVnhV1VitYG1ODLtakZAGs>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-03.txt
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: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:22:03 -0000

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:53 AM Todd Herr <todd.herr=
40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>
>> On Wed 18/Aug/2021 22:17:57 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
>> >
>> > The main update in this draft is removal of the "pct" tag, with an
>> > explanation as to why, and an introduction of the "t" tag in an effort
>> > to maintain the functionality provided today by "pct=0" and "pct=100".
>>
>>
>> As held earlier, I disagree with such gratuitous breaking of the
>> existing installed base and published records.
>>
>
> I disagree with your characterization of removal of the "pct" tag as
> "gratuitous breaking"; the spec has long contained the following text:
>
> Only tags defined in this document or in later extensions, and thus added
> to that registry,
> are to be processed; unknown tags MUST be ignored.
>
> and so should a DMARC protocol without the "pct" tag be formally adopted,
> there should be no breaking of any existing DMARC implementations.
>

Not expressing an opinion on the new text, but just on this point:

I agree the parsers won't break from this change, but an operator currently
advertising "pct=33" will suddenly stop getting what it thought it was
asking for.  One could argue that this constitutes "breakage".

-MSK, participating

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email