Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com> Wed, 17 July 2019 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@sethblank.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 1F2AE120178 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 fkm264bHfd0d for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (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 6ECFC1201CC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id s20so23678133otp.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3CrPOH8vAftdPzQ3izPoFshAuxFETPgMCdfKLam7a2s=; b=tZZ+k40SPuR86m00C44ZmDGUv/p+zVyWHbZ7WOXt1CLEoZMzW2zLiqUTl8KGIKye25 AjZ/1LRQ2+EFC9b6k6zzjUyuPGgQGY6PjJp7Nsx7fl0Cs2dT7nRYQ5A9ErhbikWNPGF+ XB7DPbxawb/NiKS0XiUI/tz5C0Z8aDHrem0v4eAMcc4a7Nb5066w+ejCs3BwFaDA0GhU TjehcyoDzkdy3n/Bhg0tX573X2MTF9Fw8KFP4VS/fM9P4WKbgxbAtn6Jm13lGwGYEHYT i138wIr3mmO/WdUQALGClPVX3HAjClaWEN70XZQ5tbssXOwJ0HfXJtWfJlALCPHF/r2Y NYUQ==
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; bh=3CrPOH8vAftdPzQ3izPoFshAuxFETPgMCdfKLam7a2s=; b=gBPPDKROGAjkD1CXNYoD/dk6bnS0NJZd9jKAbjdoNgdsX/gWVPF0GdfA08opWRSbyq C2F5kxD4PapskGUXQuvmQihwaHpjh+avU38O709jQm8vvGTPHeq7aWBAlH0lpU1EVf8O 6bLKonuqYK8ZypaVgchAPDo2eXzvpMTEe1Ln4xG0Z8GL13eyUI5hp/LyQkjrNybtVZRV L3RRd3ydUBN309V+ueyPSl80YiyRHP9/jehlbSkzQ+MowJpTCMaQ8Tg1kQAMrLXkDccG XnOlfLOYKkftmF01KFpyV8I/TAB6VihMAB1vI97TnmZvrESLuuNGiTs+yCAFqo8IpwGy f3FA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWMHXmiK9w6We00cEvasI2uq0XoRZAr+v3F81bM3eON8XHZ5fM2 6oQtA5ml39WeYZVAJzS9rLtq3PGWmrOYGT2MvkYqgvPI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzSKPLXaGAxNY/FeseVSK9Aa2LsnDPld/6oHVX6XxcSWcGI24K2qN4THl3EgaZPPxZ428iQi+/llBCJ4N8eBh0=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6f09:: with SMTP id n9mr26385076otq.335.1563340746406; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <4789054.Ip9ilXyiH0@l5580> <553D43C8D961C14BB27C614AC48FC0311CAA91FE@UMECHPA7D.easf.csd.disa.mil> <1808303.aIhlromXIS@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <1808303.aIhlromXIS@l5580>
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:18:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WN42v0RHzu+2=+_mjX5kmxw6B-0F3-=bY-bTEsJM1qLvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da552f058dd9a1e5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/424jcG3voSMatE-GIVBLYNAO0rI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 05:19:12 -0000

As an individual-

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:05 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
wrote:

> Although a few people have suggested this, I think it would be a mistake
> because it would cause a gratuitous incompatibility with RFC 7468.
>

The people suggesting this are the people asking for np= in the first place.


> I think it is a desirable characteristic that the addition of np not
> disturb
> existing expectations.  If a recipient that is a participant in the
> experiment
> attempts to determine policy for a sub-domain without 'np', then the
> result
> should match what a non-participant gets.
>

I'm not certain this is desirable for PSD in the context of an experiment
around np=.

Specifically, the point of np= is for strict enforcement for non-existent
domains while the remainder of the zone gets its act together moving
registered domains to policies more strict than none. Since, a) nearly all
sp= policies in the world are set to "none", and b) sp= is meaningless at
the PSD level anyway, I concur that np= should default to p=.

Or put a different way, the tags serve very different use cases, and in the
wild, sp= will generally be none, whereas np= will generally be
reject/quarantine. p= is the the meaningful tie-breaker here at the PSD
level if no np= is set.

This (np='s default) should also be called out as part of the experiment
around np if the group doesn't reach consensus before WGLC ends tomorrow.