IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: revisiting ticket 66

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Tue, 29 September 2020 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 0DEE43A1230 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
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 TIn4XLm31KKR for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1A73A122D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id v8so6456809iom.6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5uWxPcV7ZFMH7zNPtP1bOugjt9PgLkLSwsvgVwKEb5k=; b=UK9LlDGKquAPqUhxRjMSl7xhdaHLNutXArzNXh4wKxPNiWlh2668sxabZwTZbnFL5o ns2M4ueKpMx4jdL3F/jJVjLLviZLr5J50BE+Q3BU5owZQ/U9IQRkN7cNiJKO5VAwoorz nG1xkPTNpDydvb5KJAeo1vQSSf4Izt9vp2z9U=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5uWxPcV7ZFMH7zNPtP1bOugjt9PgLkLSwsvgVwKEb5k=; b=kphl38T9iKL5B08q/KSzFj7vp35FhHPES24mZYBy7gQT1pZ+94uBGPPWuvvR20UZqu Me15IX1mzo2+N9GYoj/1Dw/qRZOzYFcl0xYIc75r6LQgUmF6LDpnD+0rb+AuP2l5N4EC 41dASdY036TuI2gCBiL4zQuoeDxAj4Jg5oNYAgNq1+T7pext7D6+FXc2qjw5I44Oc3Lx 3fMRtxVFd1pnX42G+iPW8dnTff9hFbDv0ikLnOkpfCs3krPSUBiBqIGFOJ5rRPsfEqRp 0iJguZZKqTFpA1HXD+DMIED5wweaFM5FLxqgdFfkK2tmeL699QiXm/6JZabCSVyievN0 ASSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+bhYNvPPCVEutgBvDjb0+lQyaXjc7tpgHk9Ff2P7z6Brc481Y 8hYlfiKt+hK6zhi7xG0M76xXYFeqjwMexi91nRWbdWmzaLy4tg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy/N3D/WmfWv3W5UuoFUiJOiODN5hzHl/Ww1xeyfbYf7NiQ5THH5V+qfZztL9DQtGs2qGs55YRph0hG9tgEMhY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:9916:: with SMTP id t22mr4034444ioj.163.1601416144302; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E516B4EC-7D0E-4B46-842C-C15F6663DE51@wordtothewise.com> <20200924165210.0B0392196768@ary.qy> <CAJ4XoYekmau3MPF2w+QW8akpRKC2MPWyTuU10e9stUR9XnFQyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYO4XHWnwHAU2uPe4Y1eupoP8BzjLd9+Si0YWQQNqc96w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfNuWwT=8150Dr+nAUx0nP66T2mzRh87bDo6rkD5hhrXkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfNuWwT=8150Dr+nAUx0nP66T2mzRh87bDo6rkD5hhrXkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:48:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1rNRz8pPxkoQSHmL-GDPb+wNopPY1p60KxgoV9A7AqY=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seth Blank <seth=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b4d6305b07ac081"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/J3naWR1c6iZEfNZy_tiirfXTGUk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: revisiting ticket 66
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, 29 Sep 2020 21:49:07 -0000

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:47 PM Seth Blank <seth=
40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> At a minimum, per Dave's comments here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XXE3r5FUozl6LVohv8rTkn5QG4E/
> I still believe there's some clear consistent language that needs to be
> agreed upon to drive the appropriate specificity in the document.
>

+1 about clarifying the terminology and I'd second Steve Jones's point
about defining the terms in the RFC for consistent usage throughout both
the RFC and any usage-related BCPs.

Functionally, I think that we need to break down the actions of a receiver
(whether ultimate or intermediary) a bit more clearly:

   - "validate" = go through the process of determining a DMARC pass
   verdict (or not)
   - "enforce" = take some sort of action on the basis of DMARC results +
   policy (published + local)
   - "report" = send RUA (and possibly RUF) reports

--Kurt

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status