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

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Wed, 17 July 2019 21:55 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 7E7F11204BE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 nywEe2tQ0Abn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 78B281205CC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id m24so48272058ioo.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:55:27 -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=rKNLWXvB8j1QJ88ut4tYRVVtXZAu9ef9pUZP8j8CJD4=; b=DgBYyP4JS/DYfLMkhgMC2dvqvIEX1ydvZ2+ra6tieF6MsNyn9KFB9IQzSpO+OTJy/C 4AhbQG1B8nJ5P6nPEX7NMJr17Z4C/EqBIqomM90UHFJtw6l8uhR90ItFN3GjG+xH4kGf A2T27bXdye2uNWgm4waQwQcsRDnLRM93liOOM=
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=rKNLWXvB8j1QJ88ut4tYRVVtXZAu9ef9pUZP8j8CJD4=; b=sCUQHnVm6bXdT/2tHZs7NAv4LH0w3rn6DoHEmhni5/95kRth0blyvywvsVx/nVAaa1 wOVeAI4TBxSbbdfnR04cOyENK9UKp0LEOrIOpDplcFMZ2L8m+vCD4nb9nsMlfCLBGrqH X/eEPqPhszZmX1um76TQzXVV37STpXKWQ/GvSvLTdl54axMty9H17KAiyLeaQbdzTWeY FqU1/Tybtg3JkV3S0suP6l3Vy5Nio8Lje4+vMwbRIFVbXGRd7Ho1FzAZK8vB/vum7ajf 2LzGkRLKIXzUVX/p6LeMcUDbqLRg5EzsmFyntvBtKujg9gDWKpXZw/8Vq7PulotRzr1M rhHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUy90lxWq+5CpxpMWONgkrrTXH6OKEamVi6d4e24lCmSOtxaTZS v6YaKeyIYDzqHtkgDPEVdQlRJ46g0EkcjQgGYHWDcNFpRZY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLh7m3q1FFg2gFT+hBq6HWwxCMIAz1qcHGlydvYlrOmkunLyE+Xp8uDArTMyVzqEowic5P9cxPYPY6LKts6mU=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:f607:: with SMTP id n7mr1224854ioh.263.1563400526671; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABuGu1rSyifv0B9RtD3_R2ex-sh+nVrh4Q3H=kU=ZsDWzVRAgQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190717214021.A4DEE50EC1E@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20190717214021.A4DEE50EC1E@ary.qy>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:55:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1qS_=-Va6hdA7BfpvV6LXTMdgQmnGbewmJRNPnSKtQ9gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000008bcb8058de78de8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MLIuTUQu7Y-1ZAg8q5_rzUJ7qdU>
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 21:55:30 -0000

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:40 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>; wrote:

> In article <CABuGu1rSyifv0B9RtD3_R2ex-sh+nVrh4Q3H=kU=
> ZsDWzVRAgQ@mail.gmail.com>; you write:
> >Firstly, I'm a little concerned with the sentence which says 'Note that
> >"np" will be ignored for DMARC records published on subdomains of
> >Organizational Domains and PSDs due to the effect of the DMARC policy
> >discovery mechanism described in DMARC [RFC7489] Section 6.6.3.' I don't
> >think that is an accurate portrayal. ...
>
> I think what it means is that if there's a DMARC record on a
> subdomain, it won't see any np= in the org domain or the PSD.  I agree
> the wording could be better.  I also don't understand what possible
> meaning an np= on a subdomain record would have.


np on a subdomain doesn't make any sense; np on an org domain would. I
think that just omitting the "and PSDs" would solve my concern unless the
use case of concern has to do with PSD subdomains that are still in the
public space. It's a question of distinguishing between LPD (longest public
domain) and PSDs in general.

--Kurt