[dmarc-ietf] spec nit - which DKIM to report

Tomki <tki@tomki.com> Fri, 21 June 2019 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=068638087=tki@tomki.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 446261200B8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.245
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tomki.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 eANEPb2Xk4KR for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from athena.vistabroadband.net (athena.vistabroadband.net [69.39.252.35]) (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 1377412001A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tomki.com; l=650; q=dns/txt; s=tomki; t=1561140899; x=1561313699; h=to:cc:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; z=To:=20dmarc@ietf.org|Cc:=20seth@sethblank.com,=20zwicky@ oath.com|From:=20Tomki=20<tki@tomki.com>|Subject:=20spec =20nit=20-=20which=20DKIM=20to=20report|Message-ID:=20<7c d366d2-ab8d-cce8-67ff-59b79183cd67@tomki.com>|Date:=20Fri ,=2021=20Jun=202019=2011:15:03=20-0700|MIME-Version:=201. 0|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit; bh=5jsmqvUa+oXCfxwCUY+/0jXAe1lOaZV2xZpMXdWfVFA=; b=OdaT+tthnSH2HIlPNarpGdhNR4lThW6FwyXVskqyLaDMz+UUe6hxyq8m M6AUWMc372h5cLRn97H3r41vNVkRx9i6K/vKAnGzTkp70DHGb0gwgi/jN 2WqpXJZyDT7VxBh2TH6nON3l/K9c/gyZSbhNLirz9OUpjTvbrP5Lb0OGK ZuP5THRPni3u12HhoytBKiW6/ZYrN8ACNEklvXzHZHS0DGCbAquSMc+aA +3KDmwIWf4q5+Y6v30WYGKW2mxPDLAm1YI4oazs+Mu6ylaaIChS72KFEv 5YDuW6d6Ik+JRQtFQRTEIcfbr16iDCdjFRA/KWSxqujDDKugJGEl2Px8Z Q==;
IronPort-SDR: anW/CsyQq7aNQqN7pCaBpAOZu4Ua97yV7DumUQy+CbhL+IT2EzanpVtJkZLiQykl/IoMPxy/bR lFpU01l2CXT9GhdTC9e+FszQCWbPsghB4ZYojI2ZuxNXtTMo63HjfNQJ9oI0EZEKDNtg7qKG1Y 8+gxxxFYja5+4E1qZ7eESkiyhaKWWyVuhLW1V3tX0dlaHfvv8VGxNpq6UJK6D2cwXTRSkw33W6 w9vatFJYCPWYFyuHle4QwMoGKPFb2//OGhsEZ8KvMQnEwgLAzVmxZ6JbXIsZd5TsIlISL9+rUO ng8=
X-Filenames:
X-SBRS: -10.0
X-recvListener: Inbound
X-sendergroup: RELAYLIST
X-remote-hostname: 75-105-60-135.cust.exede.net
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,401,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="45034432"
Received: from 75-105-60-135.cust.exede.net (HELO borage.ViaSatDomain) ([75.105.60.135]) by athena.vistabroadband.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2019 11:14:53 -0700
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: seth@sethblank.com, zwicky@oath.com
From: Tomki <tki@tomki.com>
Message-ID: <7cd366d2-ab8d-cce8-67ff-59b79183cd67@tomki.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:15:03 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9-V596yl2BBaUzCNaDZB1Tg1s4c>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] spec nit - which DKIM to report
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 18:15:00 -0000

As mentioned by Elizabeth recently:  (Elizabeth please chime in if this 
doesn't capture your meaning)

the spec does not define *which* DKIM signature should be reported in 
the DMARC RUA created by a receiver.  The proposed resolution to this is 
that if the receiver does not provide the complete set of DKIM 
signatures found, they should provide (in order of preference)
1. a signature which passed DKIM in strict alignment with the From: 
header domain
2. a signature which passed DKIM in relaxed alignment with the From: 
header domain
3. some other signature that passed DKIM
4. some other signature that didn't pass DKIM



--Tomki