IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 18 June 2022 14:35 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 1B2C4C14CF00 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YELXuSqXXkTJ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ABA5C14F75F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id q11so7143195iod.8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4UUKN1aHxGdXM3qRwrzkNY9gJfQyYiQAiW8KV5W3qio=; b=DE1FrmQiq0ga2y31e7qQNNU6mFkQmkTmCiqm2admY+HyWWN01G/WrqYa2V4mHS4JoV WbyrV9/Vcztt45ixCfSynDjWFlzG0q5UzCGm4M0WBvaofRkkgrTm/LXrTEcbF8j377Gq iRA5nMGXLeBz4m3VYm95jHKGl6hlBBrBOF/q9MyOtxw6Nc7TrkKkDnblWSOA7NUEFeZc qHus2/KQw/2dgFyvMq6FE8T8bGLvIlHI022OBfaLdf3yvxxwIXEECfQ7oOMShQ+qQmlk SO1FzPK11D7UXQsYBG4P2j+2I9YKj7sVlP62zEMTdXMdhCcePlb6D3ZMBKJwelXX3b9e tg1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4UUKN1aHxGdXM3qRwrzkNY9gJfQyYiQAiW8KV5W3qio=; b=RLUeQiPryzZc3BvW0LrQFUimEKMkJe/4xFst+RpCYPAtnHbe777Ht6Z07godcHbRLy 97/8ULyj8cJSe7VtgA6XQjxlA4WwpqqXMcWSgCyRVPNOpd/Yj7VyKE6TgIBAUMKdhukM NQtMJez7LYzs9ilrFH+zp2GXlfbFkStzvLXUlDe1b6JmoDqzu8VGqxQfkGygIudR9L91 vzk5IPO95v9WMNrkVenq93mgEQhQEW39aX4fthIMxbj6qGX47Mu2iQ6ym9SK6YJLcGiR ip2F9lJWIYfcEDGqM/6xiyv85ZIPOmQp97/U4/zxQfavKge+us8OPh/1NngowLk+2SLD GeIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8ZApUpXZz8WmimNFZGBSSZc7Jy3qAbM0pLYqBT+8NQ5sj72rQX 349g+NH0VkH+nBdge7O966w0nIfkHShslwrDhNn68AYR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vzL2SrTKbX+uyKhHjYw7/ZzG0lSo0UUgbKqR7pIpGFzISqBv01wlROofJ+aMwx6N0XkejOe7FsE3ICxkAXBdk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3409:b0:669:d82b:4854 with SMTP id n9-20020a056602340900b00669d82b4854mr7594194ioz.4.1655562918841; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH48ZfzxqiPQMdRA5SNZOJA2Sd9GsL5dsGdK4aYCHBY4sNmL_Q@mail.gmail.com> <6179411.nDTXd1jgoo@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <6179411.nDTXd1jgoo@zini-1880>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 07:35:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYLWdmK4n94O=ofk3Xa4pDVYRvLuG0HwEdo1SFFNZ=5Vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ae534105e1b9c724"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Rh8cfvHHmKZEEJyNHwBdXyScfaE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 18 Jun 2022 14:35:24 -0000

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 6:48 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 8:42:23 AM EDT Douglas Foster wrote:
> > Let's talk through the selling process for the Tree Walk algorithm.
> ...
> > In sum, why should an Evaluator make the switch?
>
> I think there are some good points in here.  Fundamentally, I agree that
> there
> needs to be a value proposition associated with investing the resources
> required to update a DMARC implementation from RFC 7489 to DMARCbis.
>

+1.

1.  Does not use the PSL for something it was not intended for.  As has
> been
> mentioned many times, the PSL is designed for browser use cases, not
> email.
> In their words:
> [...]
>

This has been the biggest motivator for me.  Today we're relying on
something not intended for the purpose for which we are using it, with
maintenance practices that make us nervous.  Whatever delta may exist
between the PSL and tree walk approaches, I'd be willing to accept some of
that conversion cost in the name of a more solid and defensible engineering
and operational choice.

I also still like the notion of decoupling the mechanism of identifying the
OD from DMARC itself, which I think Dave suggested.  Have we fully
dismissed that idea?

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email