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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 20 July 2019 03:32 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 070BD12004C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
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=QEhKvTaY; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=dnztQExZ
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 PyrHId5vIHjr for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
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 6FDD6120044 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77A29F80499 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:32:01 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1563593521; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=Io0q09er8Xgq4c/QEWgkcNstP9zpXPRYefzNzs3HJnI=; b=QEhKvTaYG6QGgVve/NbM1cfzRAV7VM9A8nsEZrGdJMhjP987hF549dHB 1iMPvZpQ7ibDm6bQ41ry3veSEuq7AQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1563593521; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=Io0q09er8Xgq4c/QEWgkcNstP9zpXPRYefzNzs3HJnI=; b=dnztQExZhzwAZ0wpX19WJX2G9u0dERGwjLwFGAGYDAPuVleZePq5mJAU BefWXCug1Lhi/TDPtH7N0jC6xf2/8Y/jhP9cgLX5U5xw7vtOdDaTXC5Dfn O7vWuz25TtYWhBm5qJHJmyRjXtfkI/lHcJeCd4h1CUjvLWDsNYLgjOdmvC DX+rYGrIMrPEyupYDVqCWPM53ijgUs0Gh/JhswxxBdIBa/rA7wnz7muKMU 6PXgDv6nWDzCFhvyrA8rzvM7tClkTRXtHlSJBqWGvBMouK35WxVbQRnZ1E Hq0RbUm19PudnV907BnGsOojxp2TTuWsEcSouwP5d3vjMTHDzND//w==
Received: from l5580.localnet (wsip-68-224-171-140.sd.sd.cox.net [68.224.171.140]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19893F80042 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:32:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:32:00 -0400
Message-ID: <1843917.iXBqJGTaWb@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1q=ibMcXzp_d17XAHUKQQpUvm_h_mKzVZY9HJjDS2Di1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1rPUXTeeFL0YLEdZ80DV3tL6QVirrmf05eSE12=mZaE3w@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1q=ibMcXzp_d17XAHUKQQpUvm_h_mKzVZY9HJjDS2Di1w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Ph_FAtTmx13DFzr5DD_PWDoXm94>
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: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 03:32:04 -0000

On Friday, July 19, 2019 11:33:38 AM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:30 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com>; wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> If we want to take another run at this and put it in more standard DNS
> >> terminology, then maybe:
> >> 
> >> .... a domain for which there is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A,
> >> AAAA,
> >> and MX records.
> >> 
> >> I think that cures John's concern with my last proposal and addresses
> >> yours as
> >> well (the response to a CNAME/DNAME is not NODATA/NXDOMAIN, so they are
> >> correctly followed).
> > 
> > Yes - I think that will fix my concerns (and John's too).
> 
> Thinking about this from a reporting POV, where would a receiver categorize
> messages which ended up with SERVFAIL during the process of DMARC (regular
> or PSD)? Would "sp" handling or "np" handling be invoked for SERVFAIL (such
> as a broken DNSSEC implementation)?

RFC 7489 says:

>    Handling of DNS errors when querying for the DMARC policy record is
>    left to the discretion of the Mail Receiver.

In every case where it discusses DNS errors, it leaves it to the receiver to 
decide.  I think it's out of scope for us to do differently.

Scott K