Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 3DAA93A2459 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=vno5qRAZ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=PH7hhDeB
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 Q82ijMjMAGLJ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 B1BAE3A2456 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22372 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2020 17:00:41 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=575f.5e837739.k2003; bh=Po6OdhkSlZ9uFtIUDbUX/Sq7gA5mxNdC0YvmKmGu1wc=; b=vno5qRAZ9HtkJu0cegvVGll3Afe1B8uBaAy4R71411gufjjpQ1SdZzy7ChjMX4w347CaiiKAbayQVaoaunhzbHZKiJ1Jz62ATCEko+e3/FyAxJ8svNeCejoOANXppFwu0ZCQXZvHiDRaeARs+eAFhreFyCyYD3/PEH2GHDlgZhwzzQhzWdAdUf+wfC4j9GBj2vtrZ5GpNRBQ7vQsi4OQ7jra/WJlsWpEx4ciB3QQUUVoT4G/xkBE1E7WDDW4unjd
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=575f.5e837739.k2003; bh=Po6OdhkSlZ9uFtIUDbUX/Sq7gA5mxNdC0YvmKmGu1wc=; b=PH7hhDeBIMVi3aIUFST9ihTALS9JcHJuEV7BG3q3Bjwd00tRyh8EdRPebEDQK1KWAA5jlqbUcLl0OaKYvi6zf6EzN9bSajoOlLqssI7tIBr7hCRFmB5fh9vv4wvlPoQK8smxKBsz1lGQZn9suxOh15Ss83hbQLz5MhUDo2yt6HCO9Ki3WKa9R66krfcM+PTVfYaOPMdQdMU4FfguNg+sUN5/slt/VzDvz727PdxTPXLR8f/kopKhMMvt98915g9g
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 31 Mar 2020 17:00:41 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 31C6816D554A; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:00:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 31 Mar 2020 13:00:40 -0400
Message-Id: <20200331170041.31C6816D554A@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: seth@sethblank.com
In-Reply-To: <CAD2i3WMnP2pYOsOAxNo1-JyH3iexo=DAiDUD0LHqNcCDP3RqzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/G9QCQPDCA7YYiXKxcvc0VwFi4qU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601
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, 31 Mar 2020 17:00:44 -0000

In article <CAD2i3WMnP2pYOsOAxNo1-JyH3iexo=DAiDUD0LHqNcCDP3RqzQ@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>I've definitely seen non domain-name based authserv-ids, but they are rare
>and tend to be from opendmarc. We can certainly fix that in opendmarc.

My proposal says they're syntactically domain names, not that they
actually have to exist in the DNS.  What do those ID's look like?

The only things I can think of likely to fail would be exotica like
foo..bar that can't be parsed into DNS labels.