Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 06 November 2018 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 0C08012F1A5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:39:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=kcf9ebl2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=Cs7RVJvm
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 HlNJUQ5Y6AcH for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A47C124408 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:39:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1541533159; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=UswJWgI3eHsyUb9Dli7i3EcnCZ60HEF6qloJezlkYyk=; b=kcf9ebl2C6M/H2gy+uECVwvXD4FbUBTW+Q/hCESLzNEoZ+7AOnfTyznt bQ3CtUZMX2jpVnr3hwm5nH5l/PL3Cw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1541533159; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : date : subject : from; bh=UswJWgI3eHsyUb9Dli7i3EcnCZ60HEF6qloJezlkYyk=; b=Cs7RVJvmtT6OivzO/lKRide1YRE+dm1laByx9zEjx3w1mRbIkq7rUueR 82M2PpEFJmf8vWq77KMcvGSSxyq+vMp/W7FOewE/lHA0eCHR4WDUYJUXZ6 RY3KBDarbHVqTyV9dgVAneSeu3LzeML2KISVX8hE7pjlPgzBqAOkJeqZf4 548FEQWFMO7488yfSWhXVRXtjo05sqCl/k4+aIc8wYe7boyB4ZwVZ0mfyB 8Om3Dbls5I/iwHW4HUl4I0vgn24eqDvvefB8Pl6JvUTJcAYXyfmzHIaHrz CFGPq3LVgaDzHfTyPUfXl2A3Vdq0NPJgLnNC3SqlZkoRU0oBbW6SJA==
Received: from [10.190.55.0] (mobile-166-170-28-229.mycingular.net [166.170.28.229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12BA1C400ED; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 13:39:18 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 19:39:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <dee0fd86-40e3-e01d-6c70-2f467759be8b@tana.it>
References: <CABuGu1o4E-Svt9N++RaFvO4SATt3Wh1w7gZb1OdBSVRCm7Odmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCQmV5agORght0XWr27kDD+OkaEZcKcaDtE8wLG0Yi-YA@mail.gmail.com> <dee0fd86-40e3-e01d-6c70-2f467759be8b@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <93BFC1AD-9CC4-4CB4-89E1-A735AF5CD8E4@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/81R2TJ10yMlmej2GHLSjAXUsyeU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items
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: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 19:39:23 -0000


On November 6, 2018 7:17:10 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>On Mon 05/Nov/2018 07:23:08 +0100 Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>>> I'd like to recommend that we (DMARC-WG) accept
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kitterman-dmarc-psd-00
>>> into our work queue. It aligns with our charter already.
>> 
>> I've seen three agreements and no objections, so here's an official
>> call for objections.  If there are none by 16 November, we will
>create
>> draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-00 as a new working group item.
>
>
>Can we have a brief discussion on what exactly is the purpose of the
>I-D?
>
>At a first glance, it seems an attempt to override the Public Suffix
>List with
>a IANA registry.  The PSL is based on IANA root zones, taking into
>account PSO
>policies.  So, we're requiring PSOs to register their email policies at
>IANA,
>while their web policies will continue to be "registered" at PSL.  Does
>that
>sound somewhat curious or is it me?

Only in a very limited sense.  DMARC currently stops at the organizational domain.  This sets up processing and structure for the limited cases where DMARC 'above' the organizational domain makes sense.  

To pick one notional example (real domains, but not reflective of any knowledge of domain owner plans or policies):

Why shouldn't Google be able to assert DMARC policy over subdomains of .google the same way it does over .google.com?  Currently they can't and this draft provides policy and mechanism for them to do so if they want.

Does that clarify it for you?

Scott K