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

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Alessamdro

There are a couple of different combinations of dnssec
valid/invalid/expired you would want to account for.

Tim


On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:54 AM Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed 07/Aug/2019 17:16:29 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >
> >> If the definition of ptype smtp were "a parameter of the SMTP session
> used
> >> to relay the message" it would be perfect.  I'd propose that
> policy.iprev
> >> be deprecated and smtp.remote-ip used instead>>
> >
> > Given that RFC8601 was published just last month, it'll probably be a
> while
> > before this happens.
>
>
> Wouldn't an accepted erratum be enough to change the wording in the IANA
> page?
>
>
> About the new ptype, a reviewer suggested to also use it to report whether
> the
> query supported DNSSEC.  No DNSWL that I know supports it.  However, I know
> some DKIM filters report that feature either as a comment or as a reason
> in the
> dkim= methodspec.  Using the new ptype might make that clearer.  Consider:
>
>     Authentication-Results: example.com;
>       dkim=pass dns.sec=yes header.i=@example.org header.b=j5aQ3SJv
>
> What you think?
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl-11#section-2
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>