IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Separating DMARC alignment validation from DMARC policy

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 EAAB93A0D8C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 brfH-CI_l5Kt for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (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 253623A0CEE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id j186so10524904vsd.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3Y4HVY88HimZ9204OAB7VXSxHV3i2OEhr20/l3olfxk=; b=lBF8idb9U/plkRceSNdgA7TTro1l6YyYsOQtwrc4CtAc9BGg8KY2JFLNxulYywpRY1 F25uV0cY0jX1xskzFCUqJ/FZmr/KKlsW67Ub2hfxEhBHYeR3W4o7mn0300YoUeCY7ME5 NNKvNTSWUmGfLk6hSdgsv5hN2lEekBFiutg5byKVzki+Eyuz7BB6cFwhOTui0vujAk/o Dwj/koIO82NhDxygJl0OVVSISqrUktNLEfibpxWDQjYrXvxRwRNqRmnwMHmx8Yh9O13H qoCZQj6qYiy4Jz2Yhzz2+n5HKXfmWlsSFTgEH72Dnc0+Aci0nnTAefYcFbmAFwZZQgrC /Fiw==
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=3Y4HVY88HimZ9204OAB7VXSxHV3i2OEhr20/l3olfxk=; b=kge2KZLN577AqPmVuu9Dl33jLGoypKCOtXXSJDUiZaVYMNsU4NdVBpx6owujefdsN4 jEY/vNs3URcAThxm+bsnTEwmHWI9hW0Ux4VNLsyxr7GJ359gX+vODq1CpvkFMp8l9ObR eEOUNHt28ch0qE1uTPiK8JZrr5+UTD87l1nPnVv9Tbyw5QFOQNZKHCq+cajwXW8aoe02 XJc5jjmcDuhd6YAg22J6+FUDQ+QKu4prQfU2H/hW31gs+I4N3bfU+KHSDVtcF2zEpt6v jYO7FhtPq1rmAWakZdpzIisDGdoGBM8YME89HOWm0KJmRB9mEZzES/I83XPrraXRos3E pCOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530hCLXJuYK83w2jV3NN1vogPT3mmt3v2Qz/poLRqz51XErOOxHE NqHUCLa6nIBjE4eALFBkapbfCykp+fmoQ7NR2xXcig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6IAUfiBi0w0Dn2/itUCXIY/JTHp7Kyc5MyvGEH5UT/V2iEjcYDwpYKdz/bblg9L2FIifUcytdcA4b6MvECGQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:31bb:: with SMTP id d27mr20329369vsh.175.1595955588051; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <579385ce-b67d-9db0-0a9d-fdce9fece75d@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <579385ce-b67d-9db0-0a9d-fdce9fece75d@dcrocker.net>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:59:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbRj=N34KSaYq9eFFu_=iEooKpt+iU3mac1FPhLboni8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e7364505ab835dcc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/O_jhEdggmnbwtRZ4uR8M7tpLQwo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Separating DMARC alignment validation from DMARC policy
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:59:53 -0000

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:53 AM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> I am not a fan of splitting documents only for an abstract sense of
> cleanliness.  There needs to be justification of improved documentation
> 'cleanliness' and/or useful removal of fate-sharing -- if separate fates
> are reasonably expected.
>
>
> DMARC alignment validation is a basic, mechanical process that produces
> a yes/no response.  At that level, it's comparable to the nature of a
> DKIM validation, except for the From: field domain.
>
> DMARC "policy" is fundamentally different.  It's not that its mechanism
> isn't "mechanical" but that its semantics produce more semantic and
> operational challenges.
>
>
> I think that could reasonably make it worth strongly separating them
> into two different documents, no matter has small one of the documents
> might be.
>

I think it was you that suggested having the determination of the
Organizational Domain be its own distinct process.  Would that fit into the
first document, or should that also be something external?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email