IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 19 June 2022 07:12 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 778C6C159496 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWaJ2A431Z6C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 00:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A78C14CF17 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 00:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id d6so5531029ilm.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 00:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9FeQqU6dQ9HL579tH/dpB1uYNsVwoV63OfKbILGMXQA=; b=jb1jvtFsjwBujlVlGKGZdzDOyWBxj41vXxsIGvKTuCXFaljE4nJcKvfVSnE6Flm80K pT/OQMZNvvSuZxNR1nugkOsPjOQCClE3ydMaDkuJa98TJnYmv9xqeS1cvd/Cd4gFUQCz iVt9ICbvPEBLo+JwrFF+qPQYqmuZnAQoiY0yuUr237wLxK41G2++4NE16hw6ZqFjCIQG TW5tvFnH+BudUzqHX4ieJpk13RepAejJrjDkpqDhrzigHteXBojS6tTDpt5YBdZLhdBH uGZ4gnccoh5URiV4bAGaHzqugA2IC/FlfaCRnGxPZSJ4cVfgIK3CLQkrLa/cdlx3axEE Rz9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9FeQqU6dQ9HL579tH/dpB1uYNsVwoV63OfKbILGMXQA=; b=Fmc5ByDPw2JSvGrYcO/kQ/hRtYZkSRDJtv1Okqs0QmFtkZf1LqRsubUDWmNg3WY2ct mrui083WQOhJA6PfOMhlQvr53aGy6Dhpn3q//D0NAsi4925ilR6IUtlIq5FN3g7T3p26 u2tTLBaWRBwzrgNomek75PGDK15Zqxs6chgZoG+ttsT9dYzBQOZN7k7L+qFbwjZgWhmM RaLEtqbujzs10V3zBSqaQuPaupafA5yiLVvYECOcH02gOlosVYrNkvUHycWVwsgzZyuz zXZdJ5cJV9jUYwSZjdOxRYGc96JAIduTzcifxiGvF6ExdrjW8qTcKRIIhQLWsAk8jUA6 0ARw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/ONm6f/xQu6reyjSyrmkiYyasllCuVV/TVAWW/AdN0l20uUgqv FPcmo/e0JWBqtsD1rATrZhnH4bvVlfAzBAyvKCepfdm3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1ubg/38CVN4Hf1JBExuQ2Hfn9/HoXSg+y+NaRefUNbJ+Ef8fcKwdehkF+J4/JlRgTLgcsG+NKn9oCBMwVfO0Qs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:170b:b0:2d4:d764:bebe with SMTP id u11-20020a056e02170b00b002d4d764bebemr10187111ill.95.1655622737226; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 00:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwa0fGJRGXaueKERwM_bfSBjwB4dG8=-iTTWQ6trPohuxQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220618181008.3D0E243C75B5@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20220618181008.3D0E243C75B5@ary.qy>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 00:12:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ_8MsD-t3-25yzYDJsd3vVKHocZb+nwhrqKNpO7KutLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022733405e1c7b53f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4BPDsfd82TCBJI674D3zSWGEV5g>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 07:12:18 -0000

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:10 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> That seems like a pessimal way to make things interoperate: use one of
> an unknown set of algorithms and the other party can't tell which one
> you're going to use. If we can't agree that the tree walk is better
> than piggybacking on the PSL, I don't see any of the other changes
> we're proposing to be worth the effort to republish so we should stop
> now and not waste more time.
>

Given that we're already working in an environment where it's unlikely that
everyone's working from a common version of the PSL, I don't think this is
such a scary idea.

I didn't actually make the claim that the tree walk is better or worse, by
the way.  There are ways to say things like "you could use the PSL, but
it's deprecated for X reasons" in the model I proposed.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email