Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 20 July 2019 03:23 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 2CD69120044 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] 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=txfzc72L; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=Nyx2vS7Q
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 Pb3taMfPmalB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:23:05 -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 EBA4312004C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E4C3F80499 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:22:34 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1563592953; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=qIA5yyZLU8b1WhOY/J9F1N2Q9T4TojT4m32sPa6bYcE=; b=txfzc72LKWbHLd5dy8H5Pbdmcn8NWAOa8huS/OC2mbvVlfre/6vnKiBT ZqVBUTAWwCXzizdMXdN5crOPnsINAA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1563592953; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=qIA5yyZLU8b1WhOY/J9F1N2Q9T4TojT4m32sPa6bYcE=; b=Nyx2vS7QoFEUQpRZ8EcV+r0T9Qn65ALznv4joJqD8WF1SpJ/f4+syIR5 8N9jzIXyZdrfkYF9vYHRnqzcdj08UTnCrqN4z0AZSBBuBYwIFlYQJb8bZF rIpSXClY5swIO/8nRdG1YRIa9qXZDljlpUDyCPDyX2PKesJ4ENc5Qe1mzY Tb/EhmSYtXL+ApWuJlBaBKrG/VOCr7+qn8eRDU9AkK2G3f7j2DKqe1Ctp6 +R6pxG9Ivvt6ggFacaTRpDyXScO0mey9gzvypaaIJIN+tGQYLX0aaw9ydg mPB8dKxi8SknclgW//ZiMac3OHWHjyFmR+cybkpPQYqOz+tgE3om/g==
Received: from l5580.localnet (wsip-68-224-171-140.sd.sd.cox.net [68.224.171.140]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98080F80042 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:22:32 -0400
Message-ID: <3922903.tbmhPv1YJC@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <553D43C8D961C14BB27C614AC48FC0311CAB37BC@UMECHPA7D.easf.csd.disa.mil>
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+Eo-Q8FhApWaVXk5MQrEMabn0bK0i-1w-qFiJFYjGYQ0g@mail.gmail.com> <553D43C8D961C14BB27C614AC48FC0311CAB37BC@UMECHPA7D.easf.csd.disa.mil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/IaGfDzVVUzuX_xIdAAJxuFjK9p4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 03:23:06 -0000

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 10:01:01 AM EDT Chudow, Eric B CIV NSA DSAW (USA) 
wrote:
...
> For the current wording, I think the “if not” is unclear in the “If absent,
> the policy specified by the "sp" (if present) and then the "p" tag, if not,
> MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains.”  Does the “if not” mean if
> the sp tag is not present?  If so, then I think it should be in parentheses
> to match the “(if present)” and probably could be a little clearer by
> saying “(if the “sp” tag is not present)”.
...
Thanks,

I'm going to post an update shortly to the proposed 'np' section that 
(hopefully) addresses this concern.

Scott K