IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> Thu, 21 May 2020 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <smj@crash.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 EFD7D3A0C7B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=crash.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 w3mOM1VwbXHS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (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 462673A0C64 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.10.41] (135-180-118-4.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net [135.180.118.4] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/cci-colo-1.7) with ESMTPSA id 04LMo1Zj061449 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 22:50:18 GMT (envelope-from smj@crash.com)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 segv.crash.com 04LMo1Zj061449
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1590101419; bh=SLRPbRgHc1EhvekN1iLmaF2atyycp7mSD33ZH3Lu2CA=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Eeb1D2V5//MB/1G9BeMRVXXb6z/aSQCNEbrQV5QBKbGnHG8IzK9ONOqNxTx0phhB0 wj6mB7ZG70m3eYONBVsaJP0PpaxTPvlTETSPsVZ95XMd59hTe4qMC6P98u1q2NLlRO atuw3sB/lRPwdEh3RozcpL4hFDSMkiw03RKX+kVNw9l8U40WHtvqF8K3w9H43ttyN3 onasn35xLn4fDspIe9fxbWp66kPZM+1FMxPrVa/IdCA2M4KojzCJNd/Jz46wYs4OlK ABdvz76SyFoEk2bROWUKL2Snt5LmzzByupMZB/DlNxpeqr2+/1gt6jTBJ0Z1dGCtvW HAfte2gdSrslQ==
X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 135-180-118-4.fiber.dynamic.sonic.net [135.180.118.4] (may be forged) claimed to be [10.10.10.41]
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: Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com>
Organization: Crash Computing
Message-ID: <304cc008-5270-8a07-1462-2ee42651e9df@crash.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 15:50:01 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1784228.uJLO1Brz0r@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Thu, 21 May 2020 22:50:18 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/MOregu-6Rj5hwwp2lclSrptO68w>
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: Thu, 21 May 2020 22:50:21 -0000

On 05/21/2020 14:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.

Wow, did I miss/forget this proposal earlier in this thread? IMO this 
change should not be buried as a side-discussion, it should have it's 
own ticket (assuming it doesn't already) to raise visibility and record 
a proper discussion/decision.

--S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email