IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Luis Muñoz " <lem@uniregistry.link> Fri, 24 May 2019 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lem@uniregistry.link>
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 8BF9B120159 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=uniregistry.link
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 Q5HoKgV6CZTS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a.mx.uniregistry.net (a.mx.uniregistry.net [64.96.177.8]) (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 5F7D1120141 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Abuse: Forward to abuse@uniregistry.com with full headers
X-Virus-Scanned: Content filter at a.mx.uniregistry.net
Powered-By: https://www.uniregistry.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniregistry.link; s=bravo; t=1558721204; bh=BsZiVhiaT2b0pPJ1+/foQYRpS0M/zWIGkfyD180mlig=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=j6a8co2vc0OqzwiB/mWfEmEMZWZHgLR8TFWfbeRrO4xC2nOut33jDce3MuBe4Vo19 mVjBBv2+2AvcBSkXhWXaPTsy9zlc5Mh5ujKy//AEWIEZEOnQCxowl+ulGHgeeP3PVi 0z7r8cX6AS6PuOGn1o3jjj5OepbGVz6Z1d5eHU61Ooshrm5qQeOquOXrwhgGufXN5/ 9NzKshxdYemig2oe4iR6rMGdDfwu1YDXkXzkp2knCm5wuDIPcbYiRRDq7NrV+IGZkC 1nTLB7s2vBqi2OBybZNlwv4dAieT7pWywmRkAfmPxrED62fqxxiPZN9HpwndBgtur5 YjcHBjOBVi55w==
Received: from [64.96.148.105] (v148-105.dyn.sna3.uniregistry.net [64.96.148.105] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mx.uniregistry.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id x4OI6h5M014979 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 May 2019 18:06:44 GMT
From: Luis Muñoz <lem@uniregistry.link>
To: Brandon Long <blong=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 11:06:43 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5632)
Message-ID: <13623F97-FCDC-41A1-A285-40716A1C6E5A@uniregistry.link>
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6uVodopwuFY3XdO6RMbfxYamLZR7brKzdQoCgfjyuOhdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190523225213.C214620147B780@ary.qy> <ab587c42-dd2f-2403-999a-c7d559764726@bluepopcorn.net> <CABa8R6uVodopwuFY3XdO6RMbfxYamLZR7brKzdQoCgfjyuOhdA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_68EE5662-965D-4743-B8D7-1590BAB892D6_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/3rNiWyq6SjkKoXD69enAbp6c_2U>
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 18:06:49 -0000

On 24 May 2019, at 10:55, Brandon Long wrote:

> 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.

My reading of RFC-8460 says it does:

   Recipient domains may also use the mechanisms defined by MTA-STS
   [RFC8461] or DANE [RFC6698] to publish additional encryption and
   authentication requirements; this document defines a mechanism for
   sending domains that are compatible with MTA-STS or DANE to share
   success and failure statistics with recipient domains.

Best regards

-- 

Luis Muñoz
Director, Registry Operations
____________________________

http://www.uniregistry.link/
400 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 1660
Irvine, CA 926128

Office +1 949 706 2300 x 4242
lem@uniregistry.link

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email