Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 22 May 2020 08:02 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 E508D3A0A30 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 01:02:46 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 PN3xGdzHcRF9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
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 A5ABD3A0A13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1590134561; bh=aXRnlG7t+m7wHPZmrh+bKPVwQYhnvWrhguvfU6WVTHo=; l=835; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BJVnIbddfL/yKXRMty0JIIsxjwfz1dOGKBCwru5iStJv0na5MOIgqh4on/tn1LQZb mhSjmO7bA3vmImFk4mB5aK2T7SUNvjGZ8Pgtwy1CQnQ7q3HStuD5c+cDwwQoVvmtmP WaBRNAVNZuSMZfbq31WoSGkRX4VeiupwjzfIqYNOHkHBO2xd+yivsWXRbHGjG
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0B0.000000005EC78721.00006B5C; Fri, 22 May 2020 10:02:41 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAOZAAfP9AiYi2Gpyd2gfhbN5tUmTA5oH4_bOGq_HY4JnqYT+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <r9nefr$12k0$1@gal.iecc.com> <CADyWQ+HNGSQwxvCcsHykG9AN2rVeXCecmrpr4H+d1HDZUYUUUA@mail.gmail.com> <1784228.uJLO1Brz0r@localhost>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <7c29c378-56cf-d601-6a18-215fe2b502d2@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 10:02:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1784228.uJLO1Brz0r@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/LAtSdk_QUvuADqN7JBeNRK_JGcc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 08:02:47 -0000

On Thu 21/May/2020 23:11:54 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Agreed.  I don't think this is controversial.
> 
> Also, I don't see a problem with making the p= tag optional (with an inferred 
> value of None if not present).  This is consistent with an existing SHOULD in 
> RFC 7489 and appears to be broadly supported in existing implementations.
> 
> I'd propose we close this ticket with the following resolution:
> 
> The requirement that the v=DMARC1 tag be first will be retained.
> 
> The requirement that the p= tag be second and the requirement that the p= tag 
> is mandatory will be dropped.  If the p= tag is not present, the implied 
> policy value is None.


Please, let's not forget to update the grammar, e.g. as proposed in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tRjV69kdM6XzkiIb3ceZ2T8OWK8

Best
Ale
--