IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 18 June 2022 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 91C2DC14CF06 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NMXtLXtM5cJs for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 313A7C14CF01 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id p1so4759007ilj.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wyzB0UtUnu6SMh56cf/Aj9vuhRgQlWB1iM/tEO+EKDc=; b=pyJvbFB/idkErB+6x6gmOcZmdYvkxzHB0ImTVdMFJiIhMcWo8PO8i303w72O1IvCY2 X6vTvzw+xF2SH/NUwsOKCjQxjhOB5mWq0Ex5TINDrXlBS6mVmqz3EIoNYzkLSMOeT1Hj c3kM08o0C9Ig1exd4ga2nmdc4HgIqwu9uGypxBfprMuFk4Jglx34ODOUU2ptfOW9H4PK u63mFPaBbff9M4d9fUfvgDSuDxOrZeqhe9ZXfG64yIafmUHQSvCJU57jvdH0w3R0y//5 atWWshceLLgDf9wVFYWf31dQah8UiCzJh8QlTX1cm6YRL9RC5QxsP+YzAS7cTdEC3W2i aFIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wyzB0UtUnu6SMh56cf/Aj9vuhRgQlWB1iM/tEO+EKDc=; b=lf+678DwTdk/CV3KJdug7SXrVuAQJomthnUaGS6rS7Bt4X+3NmUlcyzPhNwkJCYK59 fjl+zDJIVefPvIYk26dWG7DIIMU/gu06xrdkNmoM9Fpj8/U7sbRcPzADd9g9LDAQ/4at GK0tJFarYtEzFItEHuRPsQ7JlkenudBg4RxHyUPO5x8f20FMWm+QTm2xERp3PB/nuStT z729fDNCLyq+y/Sc9Lyops2GCxlxIHTBMKt09bB7TI/q/1CGuERLbv+c3PCzUBZwps3j wXIEAuw6we8vU8/EMYb+gwyh8xr4axf61XDPoY8x2ilwCWQTfPnie7kIpOUrmjV4gNra KAjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8xkstQxIbahZlCsC3X5Qr4COkKxWbVFRjdALRdVOK0mDhCq/EH 7UPZmG7I9pHnSfXl45apMsLu3diiYipv31wTCfQgQoWA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tb31P6YOurATYcmq02O/64cC4uLbMbkbzxVO6MJlPcqFPNubOwZCH5WPbkBf8QmT1N/w3OLoWS1d6cQIsyIyA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:2147:b0:2d3:84e4:d536 with SMTP id d7-20020a056e02214700b002d384e4d536mr8895696ilv.122.1655564970475; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH48ZfzxqiPQMdRA5SNZOJA2Sd9GsL5dsGdK4aYCHBY4sNmL_Q@mail.gmail.com> <6179411.nDTXd1jgoo@zini-1880> <CAL0qLwYLWdmK4n94O=ofk3Xa4pDVYRvLuG0HwEdo1SFFNZ=5Vw@mail.gmail.com> <A8F0CF1E-1EC1-40CE-A0DB-028164B75B43@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8F0CF1E-1EC1-40CE-A0DB-028164B75B43@kitterman.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:09:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa0fGJRGXaueKERwM_bfSBjwB4dG8=-iTTWQ6trPohuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7c49405e1ba4138"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Iia9u-0Lj0A6OkhubOrCAAqiCOo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 18 Jun 2022 15:09:31 -0000

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 7:49 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

> Given that the mechanism we've defined uses DMARC records to make the
> determination, I don't think it would be useful to separate it into a
> different document.  If we ever get an approach that's not DMARC specific,
> then I think it would make sense to document it independently.
>

The tree walk might be the DBOUND solution, for all we know.  Having it in
a separate, generic-as-possible, document might make the technique usable
by other applications as well.

I rather liked the idea of DMARCbis saying "You need some way to determine
the Organizational Domain.  One way is with the PSL as described in X, or
you could do a tree walk as described in Y."  It also means if we ever want
to introduce some third mechanism, we don't need to do a DMARCbisbis (which
I think is DMARCter).

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email