Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nitpicky questions about DMARC record syntax

[Grant Taylor <[e-mail]>]

On 01/16/2019 11:34 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> However I feel like rejecting things because of additional white space 
> (in front of v=...) or the wrong case is being a little bit pedantic.
> 
> Rather, I think that if removing a spurious / leading space or folding 
> case causes the DMARC record to be valid, it behooves us to tolerate 
> such minor errors.
> 
> I don't want to be so pedantic that people push back on adopting what I 
> (and I assume others) think is a good technology.
> 
> Is doing so against the letter of the specification, absolutely.  Is it 
> within the spirit of the specification, I think so.

I've seen a number of intriguing, if not compelling, replies in this 
thread.  Some of which have changed my thoughts some.

I now concede accommodating a leading space is questionable.

However I still feel like /requiring/ exact case is contrary to the idea 
of "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send.".

I don't see any security implications in accepting the following:

dmarc-version = ("v" / "V") *WSP "=" *WSP ("D" / "d") ("M" / "m") ("A" / 
"a") ("R" / "r") ("C" / "c") "1"

I agree that this is contrary to the letter of the specification. 
However I think it is completely within the spirit.  Especially when 
dealing with DNS data which is inherently / invariable human entered.

I don't (yet) see any security implications of accepting improper case 
record data for the dmarc-version *IF* that is the /only/ TXT record at 
a given QName that is DMARC related.  -  If there are multiple DMARC 
records, especially if they are conflicting, strictly adhere to the 
standard.

I'm curious if anyone sees any security implications with the above 
dmarc-version.

This is me trying to learn and understand.  I'm not trying to argue one 
way or the other.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die