Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on DMARCbis, was draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 27 February 2020 11:59 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 850FD3A0A24 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 03:59:00 -0800 (PST)
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 VpSEThfe-V_e for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 03:58:58 -0800 (PST)
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 876F23A0A21 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 03:58:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1582804729; bh=ocfQfGtpzyhIQThQ14fCrbxlkcCqCQtQgTlcWPTeFQA=; l=1088; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BAEsHvOy+PWylPbHS+JmRBhHJmhtIGcxYhncBhYDFkAYNwoZXf3AvxP03mr7evPya 1/z3t65xBM6EVQfa38Jf0vpvcQclnJjvh6c8RmuJIR4QSWytHts3WOY+rjJ8ztRU4l WDIJfMwxjIvpfp80G0dBCHjISYZ8gNPr3M37dkIh4PuGHS3b9UVhfgMjYK1GV
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 00000000005DC02F.000000005E57AEF9.000013CB; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:58:49 +0100
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Freddie Leeman <freddie@leemankuiper.nl>
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <2197062.EyKCtXoLNb@l5580> <CAJ4XoYdgHD7O8wzv1J-=qC_M7-r32Z_UxHakTZWbMFOAU5OSjA@mail.gmail.com> <9467613.0cjHueyR6G@l5580> <CAL0qLwb-9OMzp=JAfDKsALEFY0T8zEWg9LOnfQSPNaJcpfL8rw@mail.gmail.com> <f1bbfc6b-a20f-5cb0-0e65-aee2c1a32536@tana.it> <CAL0qLwY5Zmh+8kRgiLqjmt1BzNAMTmvn95yConx+N6ebQwZL1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <86473ecf-84d1-eb00-6459-862762d2b5ad@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:58:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwY5Zmh+8kRgiLqjmt1BzNAMTmvn95yConx+N6ebQwZL1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ly4ZXXqJX9Uyq5HXNW8E3CScNiI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on DMARCbis, was 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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:59:01 -0000

On Thu 27/Feb/2020 05:57:35 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:44 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>>
>> There are quite some issues about DMARC.  Let me mention aggregate report
>> format first, as this brings out a third thing which can be done in
>> parallel, namely to publish http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.2.
>> [...]
>>
> 
> Please make sure that these are all recorded in the tracker so they can be
> discussed and factored in when the time comes.


I've added tickets 31, 32, and 33.

The first two ones are Freddie's entries I found walking top down
http://bit.ly/dmarc-rpt-schema .  Then I stopped adding his entries, as I don't
fully understand some details.  Freddie, please get there[*] and edit as needed.

#33 is the proposal to substitute the <version> element with the URI of the
spec, so as to let automatic parsers understand the syntax.

When the WG agrees on XML format details, we can publish the resulting schema
at http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.2.


Best
Ale
-- 

[*] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/