IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Organizational Alignment Options

Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> Wed, 03 November 2021 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dougfoster.emailstandards@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 698963A073E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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=gmail.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 B4q3Kn-5bOzb for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 07:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x235.google.com (mail-oi1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (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 03DD03A03F3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 07:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x235.google.com with SMTP id u191so3986091oie.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 07:49:18 -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=+CbtFPqF0vvPliHGV/Ugn0K6PRPBRNiKPDb2aQqR6io=; b=I2UQkkPTz083PFoz9mLaJsBQF5hS+fzEbQhN9i5+6Q6X/LmLxdvRRUc4Ksyo4KILRb KEEe5gJnxmvFFH3zrk/TUmo2suGGW3qcZlyT7zPt4mJYpfHh5ghMJ54vOS+dEYvsJn9z SNZczkcHOgkMYzwPCb0Nj9Z3dQiX0jhqBQLo93+pYicL7JucqrPCGMiQ5Vt6rbKknTw/ NhcQr4qPODPy0r7vHaxxRHhYgSDtCVzuQAG7SyHYeygQSC5SQAqL45cw3uaDCzd7opJz OSJkRmqX+JKRfoegkXZVt84tRqBff5B08uL3jgnbMI9GYnnjUzSblceX9toPw9qYBSJ3 A0Dg==
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=+CbtFPqF0vvPliHGV/Ugn0K6PRPBRNiKPDb2aQqR6io=; b=bqmsuA9ZCAUcVNxktUwYM/+DizpvquHq0so1GeSDVM1wMvMfhm2hTdy5/p7kHcAXVr /8M099V5LfFsXthLZtx+enH2XeRaTo5Sl28btzk+dPX1nZ9+EUa6Cn8jl5Abrbo2Tuf5 DaWqhrEblaT7GUz1498jlh8Jo31KofcZSF5Q0EWES2gsoM4ZDdhWeNYw2yeCbtumWhoA C9ywXIFqrwNmk9k8ziHsKEt4f67q9fDko//ZZ2LRicdq0QrFJdVEuAlLBZDF/iDKbxkG tglLFp9qGbsrOfaFFKINQy8CDNHfk31G2/GL8+jytOAZLzpghrkh38lKjebRZd0NKpvq hOSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532llFNd7JDlm9nMBTjgWz5UtPpTYupW6EsfuKC7zBhorXWBcsXV 2a6aeRibVYqo4gefkIAKUc2N0Kr1iywy90pDnK9jcAym
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxORokjMGBRRmRLmE5h0YMhp5XK1A48Qk782deQErZQ6UdOmRHj3GBCi+8msIGRchLtzcbYTB98TRkCeTRN6A8=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3ad6:: with SMTP id h205mr11127851oia.146.1635950956995; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 07:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2711788.FqbP7rhDY4@zini-1880> <20211103020904.DFCEF2F707FB@ary.qy> <CAH48ZfyM3vK=qJOhCfj7L1GF9TvE9GeeXqaGhknryaOfWHqgnA@mail.gmail.com> <D9211216-3919-4E5F-8A8B-F8E6FE85A851@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9211216-3919-4E5F-8A8B-F8E6FE85A851@kitterman.com>
From: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 10:49:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH48ZfyzymGL-S5XKtDmY4QG0qC6xybwroX=9eWJKjDW_SDq1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9696e05cfe3837c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6rvWnJw6l5P_kLWP4M6KeGnisv8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Organizational Alignment Options
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, 03 Nov 2021 14:49:26 -0000

Type=A, name=host1, domain=a.b.c.d e.f.example.com

Assuming that we will be walking the top n levels, it is only an issue on
long domain names.




On Wed, Nov 3, 2021, 10:19 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:

> Would you please provide a specific example where this would be needed?
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by resource record names that is
> not a DNS domain.
>
> Scott K
>
> On November 3, 2021 10:53:07 AM UTC, Douglas Foster <
> dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The tree walk should address whether we do anything for domain-part names
> >that are resource record names rather than DNS domains.   Such names
> cannot
> >be given a _dmarc. subdomain, so they cannot be given an exact-match DMARC
> >policy.
> >
> >Always doing a one-level walk from the bottom would ensure that they can
> >have a policy at the closest possible layer.
> >
> >On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 10:09 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It appears that Scott Kitterman  <sklist@kitterman.com> said:
> >> >4.  Common parent domain not marked PSD.  We could add a new tag to the
> >> DMARC
> >> >records for PSDs to indicate it's a PSD, so it's record shouldn't be
> used
> >> for
> >> >alignment.  Getting this added to the literal handful of PSD records
> that
> >> >exist and specifying it should be used going forward is doable.  To
> >> implement
> >> >this approach should produce identical (modulo PSL errors and
> omissions)
> >> >results to the RFC 7489 approach.  It seems like we've decided to trust
> >> that
> >> >ICANN and ccTLD operators will effectively manage publication of PSL
> >> records
> >> >for policy discovery, so this leverages that trust to simplify
> alignment
> >> while
> >> >maintaining backward compatibility.
> >>
> >> This is a much better worked out version of my DNS tree climbing
> >> proposal.  I like it too.
> >>
> >> R's,
> >> John
> >>
> >> PS: Just out of nosiness, what PSD records exist now?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dmarc mailing list
> >> dmarc@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status