Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 04 December 2019 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 1F31C1200B3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:13:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=T/3IJb8M; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=LXr5suLj
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 1DSZ3HqyZA-g for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 264121200A4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57790F805FA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:13:49 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1575443629; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=JFXVl+2Dx2a3nempf6mn7i6QfmHZhle5wpvBerkZ1eQ=; b=T/3IJb8Mk1pUmNjued9AWszjoGn9eSuYnqF2RvqskShFa22XcOYHg9ez EKMmmXA2rl6EWiqeLtfBGx619+VZDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1575443629; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=JFXVl+2Dx2a3nempf6mn7i6QfmHZhle5wpvBerkZ1eQ=; b=LXr5suLjh4zVmxCcJP/OeZRt56wERsPIg93DjSeThPrP5061cc5g8G81 7iQbYmGtgBoxpAv/hfzV0XIH6E30Z9sBXYBsMiqfI0yOxIVw1bRzfsgQvg /YBCAiNFNKdkdzvVnDqm6hCq+nEQ9KX2F3Mm/u9mYvvM4pqX1zS2g2BgYt xZvlTiqQEBWDiaKQb3hs4eQEb97jEr7fnsxt8ya/Fv3IxUGMklSen4sfKj 1TErxpwZxpZOrGDih853NP5UqYXR6V9+u4BuCogVc+W5KrdrvSyUlsrnDe W5ZgQoVYguzcvZNR/Q1eXAWquqwPlHnmZSGcKjRZAAtc0zRgjGAz5Q==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 274D7F80041 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 02:13:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 02:13:48 -0500
Message-ID: <2256126.EK92VDTyOC@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912031621140.9180@ary.qy>
References: <CAL0qLwbo1AtJ6LG1UuSSoBC-GwjdQsc5CA2h6q5VqMxH=dxK5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa=zs29zKHZmhzB7RSQyT7wRUCdqh1LSLTksX8d6h5naQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912031621140.9180@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/NxzZJ4DjxmY2bgK_xGlHHdPIM_w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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, 04 Dec 2019 07:13:53 -0000

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 4:21:47 PM EST John R Levine wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 7:54 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>; wrote:
> Nice to know I'm not the only one who lets my mail marinate for a while.
> 
> > Assuming the ptype we're talking about is "dns" which is defined in the
> > same document, the definition is terse and there's not much guidance for
> > the designated expert about what things should be allowed with respect to
> > future registrations.  I think Scott basically said the same thing.  I'd
> > like to see those points addressed before green lighting it.
> 
> Seems reasonable.  Ale should be able to spin up a new one.

I'd prefer to see the new dns ptype separated from the dnswl discussion.  I 
can see broad utility in the dns ptype (for example, if you want to indicate 
that a domain is testing DKIM, I think we need dns because that's where you 
find the information - it's not an attribute of the signature).

Scott K