Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 05 January 2021 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 A78BD3A0A26 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 04:25:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 f8C6KyH51D2X for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 04:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 52F5C3A0A1D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 04:25:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1609849539; bh=l/QYdbLiP5BIjOtVHeXc53472D8gIS65xtrEwZwHsNM=; l=1211; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ABnObEATGl69oLNY/HFkvzRkUsPRsix9xOLmelFVLnOBgBiEZQzJFnjyTeRRKi/sO WrQalaMR5osZN4DSAHnYshuHmaE2P9H4IEwNrhuDrx9j4j0fROzGcb+eESZQRsOi9E fBVUFfLzYEb74ozXbPD8hjnfNzkFiGpw0egSaexP2C6aBCXQRRRO6LIHtFHjc
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC026.000000005FF45AC3.00002DAB; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 13:25:39 +0100
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org, todd.herr@valimail.com
References: <20201231192500.1B3483F0176B@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <be0601ec-7e50-f280-4cf4-66c3b4ac7fa5@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 13:25:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201231192500.1B3483F0176B@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/EebqhnwmC0b7w14B210YpfPLiP8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC
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, 05 Jan 2021 12:25:43 -0000

On Thu 31/Dec/2020 20:24:59 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <CAHej_8kkuQR3_LiV_O5Z-EPvVeZrdTPvCiK7rOmWKxQKsp=6pA@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>>
>>Dave Crocker submitted some suggestions on-list, and I noodled a bit with
>>the text myself, and submit the following for your collective consideration:
> 
> I have a few minor editorial tweaks to suggest but they can wait.  I think
> we should use this text.


+1, I see it's not yet on github.  Please go ahead, possibly posting a .txt as 
well, so we can run IETF's diff tool.


Among the minor tweaks I have:

1.  In the Abstract, the term email (or mail) appears late.  I'd suggest either 
"an email author's domain name" or "validation of the domain's email use".

2.  Shall we really stick to "RFC5322.From domain"?  Rfc5322bis will presumably 
get published at about the same time as this I-D, so that terminology is doomed 
to sound as antique as message/rcf822.  Possible alternatives:

2.1. Author's domain.
2.2. domain part of the From: header field address.
2.3. Main identifier (DMARC's main identifier, when used outside the I-D).

3.  In the 1st paragraph, "reports about use of the domain name", /email/ use.


Best
Ale
--