Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:25:45AM -0500, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > > Section 2.3
> > > >
> > > >    body:  Information that was extracted from the body of the message.
> > > > [...]
> > > >       interest.  The "property" is an indication of where within the
> > > >       message body the extracted content was found, and can indicate an
> > > >       offset, identify a MIME part, etc.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not seeing where it's specified how the "property" gives an offset.
> > > > I see other descriptions below about specific header fields and SMTP
> > > > verbs and such, though.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's text from the 2009 version of this work.  Those were speculative
> > at
> > > the time and haven't yet materialized, at least not in standardized use.
> >
> > Are you proposing to leave the text unchanged regardless?
> >
> 
> I know the use case exists, because I wrote that text when I worked for a
> company that was likely to make use of it, but it appears that hasn't
> happened in the deployed universe.  So now we have a registry entry for the
> "body" ptype which isn't deprecated, but possibly no live uses of it.  The
> working group didn't discuss taking any action to either "fix" or bolster
> this, as its focus was elsewhere (specifically the changes needed to
> support the DMARC/ARC work).
> 
> I'm inclined to leave it as-is, possibly with a remark capturing what I
> just said here.  If no uses of it appear before someone decides to revise
> this again, we can formally deprecate it.

Okay.

> > Section 3
> > > >
> > > >    of the validity of the connection's identity using DNS.  It is
> > > >    incumbent upon an agent making use of the reported "iprev" result to
> > > >    understand what exactly that particular verifier is attempting to
> > > >    report.
> > > >
> > > > Does that in practice constrain "iprev" usage to within a single ADMD?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would imagine so.
> >
> > This is just the COMMENT section, so do what you will, but I would consider
> > mentioning this property of "iprev" more explicitly.
> >
> 
> Actually, on second thought, it doesn't: ADMD #1 could attach an "iprev"
> result that ADMD #2 could decide it trusts.  That is, sort of, the ARC
> model -- you decide whose external results you're going to believe.

Part of that seems to be having a side agreement between ADMD #1 and ADMD
#2 about the semantics in use in order for the trust to be meaningful.  But
I guess we don't need an IETF standard for that to be possible.

> About to post the new version.

Thanks.

-Benjamin