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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 13 July 2019 06:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 00E9D120024 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=5BC2DRuY; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=RkvN9XS8
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 ogtKG_9-DoJE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 23:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF8D120019 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 23:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FEC0F8071F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 02:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1562997845; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=n9AFmcqj8B85fjXkxO1QX/oRRSoqS765uU+P2WEEHIs=; b=5BC2DRuYeag9UIobsCbxmR306QEkJy+2hOLGqMq6Ls/9hT845G45BUCu 8F8M0nAI56ADzQ2rK84Y6RGL7raeDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1562997845; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=n9AFmcqj8B85fjXkxO1QX/oRRSoqS765uU+P2WEEHIs=; b=RkvN9XS81f/8qHEJchxQ5nPrdUsSqEMIiLFeLZpB3vSJhkJ57aArDNZA omiZrhUl5Xq4ACDBQr3POicXD3H4Hs+nYos43xIDqoWAqYSvlraADLotBt iZ2KfIKFofgDYCPFfXg6cJ6Go1nuXI/kGZMmqrkCBtJlr3Npkmr49EEgCj PepVmpN47r66CdE2RXG0D3766Q8JZGC2Y9y/DvN+FjDTVO4p1oP1AxZI9/ VCBgi2AMXLsdbvuAa6hL0V7J/TV/7ncCactELMl7Rry/892m327lv5Q2pQ L2tWx0pE8DdnTGQD+Dge6Hgq7hXn9/OP+IIHIuXJbX53MQ4JyZgbGA==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20CB1F8021A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 02:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 02:04:04 -0400
Message-ID: <3017917.gKNyNSpcLf@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <20190713043409.A5EB64A61C0@ary.local>
References: <20190713043409.A5EB64A61C0@ary.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/44sVJzvPkXkdT7Np-0ANr9Wm2Zc>
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: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:04:41 -0000

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 12:34:09 AM EDT John Levine wrote:
> In article <2902055.CzhLQO0xIX@l5580> you write:
> >Here's the definition we have in the draft now:
> >> 2.6.  Non-existent Domains
> >> 
> >>    For DMARC [RFC7489] purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain name
> >>    that publishes none of A, AAAA, or MX records that the receiver is
> >>    willing to accept.  This is a broader definition than that in
> >>    NXDOMAIN [RFC8020].
> >
> >That's what I was expecting this new tag to apply to (and I think matches
> >their expectation, but they can speak for themselves).
> 
> That's OK.
> 
> >Another way to say what's in 2.6 now might be:
> >
> >... a domain for which there is a NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX
> >records.
> Not so OK -- if there's no records at all at or below a name you really will
> get NXDOMAIN.

Good point.  Thanks.  I'll leave it as is.

Scott K