IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Fri, 24 May 2019 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 A2B71120125 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 JRkXhkec8Lqg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 EF958120059 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id w19so6393035vsw.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EGTilHyHVqm98a4GDtZEbPLOy8ZkFyBOQb0rC9ZT3Ko=; b=vRjAKv6a18LJKxdGu+V8mr+TeNmYRfTjzo9/N/4qXqggY2kYxwYEDAkcrI1NbcmWxq /dAuGbUTkmZwrJ0POh2IKBfwic6Hmhd9DUgH4EaXJgOtJHjHkHkrHdZEIxnvqVlp0dLf LJwnfOHcP0c0JotY7MnRQ1siTHBXS1r5PQgapFHWrSCzYJHT/TeSeENuUmIDq5vWtx7W oWJysTX7JhC1c0sUV6IAniO4zahYKX5heNVWkFfNtlFghf8gAB7t1oprEviPvFHzO3zt mckGT5djxfNWalv8qkpeqjh9xncP5WqogONtV70eKx4AEbtrpuialr6oH+4Nq+ll+bup 4tJg==
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=EGTilHyHVqm98a4GDtZEbPLOy8ZkFyBOQb0rC9ZT3Ko=; b=JyRjXn0TJ91xiU1Ph54emEF1b5EdGG5IxeQzX6GGyUIULSE8tfCmPDm4+wJ8ZNmjYP mQnLPCWWb9SJsm6gzvwwI3HxrCwcJ2nF4e9KExI4LrCvekoAYp8pw8E8cb4PWoEo5iOT qujDESJ34H8tlw16KF/+QGkuMAJelyfspKuDf5kSxGW1mlUHELaxRCK9Z6vLpdAeTaVP C3SUq8mmanVs5xGac/hpaZVniWZYmEO+qOAImpNTX/v3OcfXn77VolvEzaxYEYEld9Z6 +SssEdMIL0Or6g+ZxQetAb4uR2Qysu9cMMdDpxqkKJ03suO2g1bexGHMnxUU4wKi6NUt O/cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUg1Dhs67Eue8pC876XLcgePCeeXQx/B9o7CKoIHX/CaOC2kCO8 D5DqPdeg2PJrkIAqcrP1Jsy6h2RoLXlZ4wiSILfsZFQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyXOgiM1iTgPXvLDRp1oG5aNgtXSNGRO2xnB6N5q0Mc/JuZ609qHU5dxhqQHecT1ZcYN5IkcFT60SYMIZEENR8=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ca9a:: with SMTP id a26mr24508244vsl.92.1558720550363; Fri, 24 May 2019 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy> <ab587c42-dd2f-2403-999a-c7d559764726@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <ab587c42-dd2f-2403-999a-c7d559764726@bluepopcorn.net>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 10:55:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABa8R6uVodopwuFY3XdO6RMbfxYamLZR7brKzdQoCgfjyuOhdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6290b0589a5e8de"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/15LYKDeKjZdxah5oIudSGisBPio>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy
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, 24 May 2019 17:55:54 -0000

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:01 PM Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:

> On 5/23/19 3:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > In article <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61ade6@bluepopcorn.net> you
> write:
> >> There are domains that would like to receive reports, but whose usage of
> >> mail doesn't make it useful to express a policy. Conversely, there are
> >> domains that want to express a policy but aren't interested in reports.
> >> I'd like to advocate that DMARC be split up into two different documents
> >> dealing with reporting and policy separately. If it's useful to have a
> >> separate document that defines what it means to be "DMARC-compliant"
> >> that is referenced by both, that would be OK.
> > Given that we already have one document, I would be very strongly
> > opposed to this.  It's fine to fix things that are wrong, but trying
> > to restructure it retroactively will inevitably lead to accidental
> > incompatibilities.
>
>
> MTA-STS and TLSRPT started out as one document as well, and separated
> quite cleanly IMO. I'm not sure what kind of incompatibilities you think
> might be created.
>

Does TLSRPT support both MTA-STS and DANE?  I would think that provides a
logical
reason to separate them that doesn't exist for DMARC.

Brandon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email