Re: [dmarc-ietf] Extensions in Aggregate Reporting - Feedback Requested

Matthäus Wander <mail@wander.science> Sat, 05 June 2021 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mail@wander.science>
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 BB4803A201C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 04:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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=wander.science
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 JulMED5VUV9f for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 04:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swznet.de (cathay.swznet.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:13b:2048::113]) (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 E55C83A201D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 04:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wander.science; s=cathay; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Sender:Reply-To: Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ZzcwSWP9br3Gmhp/Af1pP4dD1LDRfjsGVfr853iAw/Y=; b=IwVcUxMabDZlf3QYlIswcj61IT 7JmrpZQ50I/KCZpwRcWJo+eGbR+X+ySPJZnOeR7gOn6BjPAVHYsBVLfIHjrb95/oA7YKBRC+hZFYM 2CvBWyDoS3Yff94uMYGW6qdUEEevsI/Ic+hmSkML2pw/DqG4Q8+04RmtY/Gt2ugd1WzKZHJlFzOf8 JnWfVByjGZAjaCJ34/kEANPNejolblunjsf70igU2liYHP07cfAcKDTvpINVN5vkFY+0GkTp6HyRp R2HQo2tirD7TSrrWHnxUbfj8kIWXi0hCpvf7K8/i+0sCTaElZP3YKLYLK5OAw/j9o57U7hKzfElDe s+ZzqAnA==;
Received: from dynamic-2a01-0c22-b826-2100-284a-ff4d-6201-9b43.c22.pool.telefonica.de ([2a01:c22:b826:2100:284a:ff4d:6201:9b43]) by mail.swznet.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mail@wander.science>) id 1lpUjd-0002k7-77 for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 13:45:05 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <MN2PR11MB4351A6C5A477DB006CB6DD72F73C9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Matth=c3=a4us_Wander?= <mail@wander.science>
Message-ID: <e6575d23-7d8f-fcb8-ae21-72ce46f4600c@wander.science>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 13:45:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4351A6C5A477DB006CB6DD72F73C9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:c22:b826:2100:284a:ff4d:6201:9b43
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mail@wander.science
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 08 May 2019 21:11:16 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.swznet.de)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/55ZPD_E2dZT_wj903WGxJQ-JaWU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Extensions in Aggregate Reporting - Feedback Requested
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, 05 Jun 2021 11:45:14 -0000

ARC shows the need for extension data within <record> elements:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8617#section-7.2.2>

Example from RFC 8617:
<policy_evaluated>
  <disposition>none</disposition>
  <dkim>fail</dkim>
  <spf>fail</spf>
  <reason>
   <type>local_policy</type>
   <comment>arc=pass as[2].d=d2.example as[2].s=s2
	as[1].d=d1.example as[1].s=s3
	remote-ip[1]=2001:DB8::1A</comment>
  </reason>
</policy_evaluated>

With proper extension support, this example could look like this:
<row>
   <policy_evaluated>
     <disposition>none</disposition>
     <dkim>fail</dkim>
     <spf>fail</spf>
     <reason>
       <type>extension</type>
       <comment>arc=pass</comment>
     </reason>
   </policy_evaluated>
</row>
<auth_results>...</auth_results>
<extensions>
   <arc xmlns="(...)">
     <result>pass</result>
     <sets>
       <as>
         <instance>2</instance>
         <domain>d2.example</domain>
         <selector>s2</domain>
       </as>
       <as>
         <instance>1</instance>
         <domain>d1.example</domain>
         <selector>s3</domain>
         <remote_ip>2001:DB8::1A</remote_ip>
       </as>
     </sets>
   </arc>
</extensions>

An IANA registry could serve as repository of IETF-approved extensions.

It's worth considering whether certain elements should be defined as 
extensible. In the above example, the <arc> element could be placed 
below <auth_results> next to the existing <dkim> and <spf> elements. 
Implementations support this behavior by simply ignoring unknown 
elements. XML Schema supports extensibility in well-defined places with 
the <xsd:any> element.

Regards,
Matt