Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC Issue 136 - DMARC Records Can Be CNAMEs

[Todd Herr <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:43 PM Mark Alley <mark.alley=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/14/2024 3:38 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:34 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think this is correct.  I think it's obviously enough correct that I'm
>> surprised anyone was confused.
>>
>> Do we know what the theory was that led people to think otherwise?
>>
>> Seems to me we don't really need this, but maybe there's a reason.
>>
>>
> The reasons given were:
>
>    1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5863#section-4.1
>    2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-7.5
>    3. Neither RFC 7489 nor DMARCbis contain the phrase "CNAME", so if
>    it's not explicitly mentioned...
>
> Granted, the first two citations are in regards to DKIM records, not DMARC
> records, but those were the reasons given.
>
> Couldn't hurt to clarify explicitly, I'm for it. Domain owners have been
> using CNAMEs with DMARC TXT RRs pretty much since its inception.
>
I agree that clarifying it can't hurt, obviously, but I was quite surprised
to hear that CNAMEs were being published for DMARC records, as I'd never
seen one. On the other hand, I've seen *lots* of DKIM public keys published
as CNAMEs, which I'm sure just wrecks the person citing DKIM RFCs as a
reason that DMARC records can't be CNAMEs.

-- 

Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]


This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.