IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 136 - DMARC Records Can Be CNAMEs

Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com> Thu, 14 March 2024 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.alley@tekmarc.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 A0014C14F6A0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tekmarc.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 jkvlpeSPSNpo for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1133.google.com (mail-yw1-x1133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1133]) (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 C4A3CC14F60E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1133.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-609f24f447cso17587987b3.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tekmarc.com; s=google; t=1710459175; x=1711063975; darn=ietf.org; h=in-reply-to:from:references:to:content-language:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=h7OmpxYBw7NFuNnn1gr1F0oBzjuoz42l2JJ8joxfUx8=; b=UW0EAyCRR0+aiBolMj+0XyzsO0dH7BN9PhgyEmimIcnWXbey4YPMnhTdkVIJBFKZaA F57kGhMX7GDB1w9sVmJGQtz0lvy48eTTOg4ktlA10hTsU2J3FFtgJ0gc0UPckQ2uHUtv BGauasP3Og4zBB/SZ/Tvccxy2Ka9SkxsecqjeoqUjF7k4pPRcc+ETx/zNbm4YDyxRqoI EgA8BoQ1iUNMpIUSb+NXnhrZUY1otDvcblYQ0BKEtcHMFoyF4O4upwNW7xKlDC7gqnA9 b13j5HlKk4uA9K8ujVpPzqWYeyVf9K8v1jZRinPV/mpP268+sTJQLmWhx5XW91yyDJR8 TSwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710459175; x=1711063975; h=in-reply-to:from:references:to:content-language:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=h7OmpxYBw7NFuNnn1gr1F0oBzjuoz42l2JJ8joxfUx8=; b=xDOz2OzekwBj/3DU4KLF0/OAsVVCe+9SV+eR0tQQ+mjP0P2+Y0JJY/aSUByna8hDqg kYUoy+hI8hHeQAnCyQFc6IDoZgFvJqy6NTGtStuPR0fSZTsX7PyhIB+O69eEuNWrz6jP lgT24ACFq+/EHmFIrU/WqobeLLAUBf6zVZhOqnOvLpEFnccqnO0OYquQb5MmJtRJ6XKy gVSJeLk4BPDGOBkeKzDbsFClmKiUBHvoPVgWCcFvplQKAWD9bhuA1SjFtRVTmPYtOmpn 4X8X00dXJA9gnIMp5/hEbijtPhNTM37BHFvnPYSrt0FhelKEXs5yltQxsQyKIfzoMvNR z2OQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzn1C6TNJV2g1uPQW7nwgl2oM5ZeShl3yLA8vX0JkbamdDZzAvj THZHoo6+fCNLWuzKXYeLo7zSnywaaoT/MlSBPmhJGGb4vubyrxo2x2t/HUiT0cqs5+z38NUwQEr a
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGbjwrvV13qIXnY4vvsq1cN7jmPm5qT5BikbMHdSeumtaROi68SrtJaEIFakI1RAUkJriWQ/w==
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:fbc7:0:b0:609:fb3f:46d8 with SMTP id l190-20020a0dfbc7000000b00609fb3f46d8mr2324632ywf.19.1710459174931; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.20] (162-238-103-217.lightspeed.brhmal.sbcglobal.net. [162.238.103.217]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y74-20020a81a14d000000b0060894d466ffsm491040ywg.121.2024.03.14.16.32.54 for <dmarc@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------aoeTltpEGKUFpzV07xFUehKn"
Message-ID: <88e5ce4e-64b4-452a-84f0-8fc90d297e2f@tekmarc.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:32:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20240314231133.373738563BAE@ary.qy>
From: Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240314231133.373738563BAE@ary.qy>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/7fPB4LiuxJtapUhuBktb7JkHqjg>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 136 - DMARC Records Can Be CNAMEs
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:33:00 -0000

On 3/14/2024 6:11 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Todd Herr<todd.herr@valimail.com>  said:
>> I agree that clarifying it can't hurt, obviously, ...
> I disagree, it does hurt.
>
> If we say you're allowed to use CNAMEs to point to DMARC records,
> people are to say uh oh, is there something special here? What about
> DKIM records? what about SPF records? how about SPF includes? or SPF
> redirects?

Fair.

> Really, there is nothing to say here, so let's not say it.
> R's,
> John

For some document consumers I still posit the original proposed text may 
be useful for clarity, but to their point (and yours), it's already 
presumed the reader has a working conceptual understanding of DNS; I see 
your point how it could add only more questions.


- Mark Alley

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email