Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Thu, 21 May 2020 21:11 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 4EF9A3A0A98 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, 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=eEfcDWKH; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=JJYT5J0g
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 NfXybElUdgJi for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A935B3A0A86 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58423F80271 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 17:11:55 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1590095515; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=fzMHOtUCS+HxTS8hvXJ1npLj/FMuDclnF+bBBiBx9SU=; b=eEfcDWKH5ZEBu5fprJFgKzaB19uuW2mijuoR+6NBmzhO9+fqEP6tRFQ0xWdOCeRZNied8 nf8SfHipZExq7q5DQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1590095515; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=fzMHOtUCS+HxTS8hvXJ1npLj/FMuDclnF+bBBiBx9SU=; b=JJYT5J0gmYTXpYhAoRtCnzVERKOHk6XcgUJwxR6y7m6y7oyFQLJT9BJhMsRrzSYLDq0lX 7mAsuEVgWxryz2ZjcLU9h60sNN5selHX0ZSmPCxfxJ+jsQ78bEzXtOyRZA/2jQcw0X09P01 10DMigqXRImOzkbihXcAqDwnPjJ64kOzynS9uyXWtqzhyWjmpQZEq5w57Av1jfHdK4XIQu2 9catJogJJrqOfMTQqi+/cfCuEP3NvjLmBorM0otA0Xdo/9KE/v0lt8AkL/wIhNjL6AWBS7v 4GnzZy3SOjQW+94QA06U1O9DfMtSfNf/w2YyPQ5NmQOwRBnLcy8StseofzkQ==
Received: from localhost.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B89DF8009D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 17:11:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 17:11:54 -0400
Message-ID: <1784228.uJLO1Brz0r@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+HNGSQwxvCcsHykG9AN2rVeXCecmrpr4H+d1HDZUYUUUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOZAAfP9AiYi2Gpyd2gfhbN5tUmTA5oH4_bOGq_HY4JnqYT+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <r9nefr$12k0$1@gal.iecc.com> <CADyWQ+HNGSQwxvCcsHykG9AN2rVeXCecmrpr4H+d1HDZUYUUUA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/B7tPRrwQ2oC1iBdK0OvZ8kGo1zI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement
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: Thu, 21 May 2020 21:11:59 -0000

Agreed.  I don't think this is controversial.

Also, I don't see a problem with making the p= tag optional (with an inferred 
value of None if not present).  This is consistent with an existing SHOULD in 
RFC 7489 and appears to be broadly supported in existing implementations.

I'd propose we close this ticket with the following resolution:

The requirement that the v=DMARC1 tag be first will be retained.

The requirement that the p= tag be second and the requirement that the p= tag 
is mandatory will be dropped.  If the p= tag is not present, the implied 
policy value is None.

Scott K

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:54:55 PM EDT Tim Wicinski wrote:
> (With no hats)
> 
> I agree with John the v=DMARC1; is magic and MUST be first.  Everything
> else can show up wherever.
> 
> tim
> 
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:09 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> > In article <CAL0qLwa-iuyB_iNQU+g6e3NH1+q0W413RaCZcHp==
> > s9CQA7s1g@mail.gmail.com>,
> > 
> > Murray S. Kucherawy  <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >It's been a while since the original discussion, but I can't remember why
> > >the requirement is there in the first place.  The only benefit I can
> > >think
> > >of is that having "v=" first lets you decide very quickly if you care to
> > >continue, but the savings is really pretty small.
> > 
> > The v=DMARC1; is a magic number that tells you whether it's worth decoding
> > the
> > rest of the record.  People put a lot of junk at tops of their zones, some
> > of which is in k=v format and I would prefer not to try to decode records
> > full
> > of junk to see of a v= tag is in there somewhere.
> > 
> > Other than that I agree there is no reason to specify the order of
> > tags.
> > 
> > --
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> > Dummies",
> > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc mailing list
> > dmarc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc