Re: [dmarc-ietf] org domain and levine-dbound and dns-perimeter drafts

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 19 November 2020 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 5645B3A0D47 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:39:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 K2eUFORQT2DL for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:39:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C02DE3A0D43 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:39:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1605789567; bh=Lec5vyLofOr3HD7SuPIe7nQbFsNt7w+dBVcpQUqSnA0=; l=993; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BQhGimoPx4AGy8+NVSRwAdnOJJVYqNzmPh+M4Ts5Nxb1b+pXDTglHKLl2XXF/6U2h w6lUfmrehueeGgTA2i3yvsf/jrJlCp/dAU/6tOhcplPQJWA1E1OkIW3unkuvBpul8z Fc2vJin4rdicyg+lndwQnIMOujNzXlN/HfdtjYOvd7wSTPqNmwvBsqNDbAdcY
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC07E.000000005FB6677F.00007F54; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:39:27 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201118204436.5BE81278D997@ary.qy> <2cabc3c3-3f72-f3f8-0909-860112d25141@dcrocker.net> <a166ad22-8229-9662-f480-9953607df88d@taugh.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <fab8a341-dde0-31b9-c770-3029e76d43fb@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:39:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a166ad22-8229-9662-f480-9953607df88d@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/T3c5aHczzT8AQgJQIddp59-wrWw>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] org domain and levine-dbound and dns-perimeter drafts
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:39:34 -0000

On 18/11/2020 22:33, John R Levine wrote:
>> On 11/18/2020 12:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> so I encourage the group to limit the debate to the existing Org/PSL
>>> kludge and a tree walk.
>>
>> "and a tree walk" is not a minor 'and'.  neither conceptually nor 
>> operationally.  assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> I didn't say they were equivalent.  But I do think they are the only options 
> that are likely to get much interest from the WG.


I don't think tree walk is a viable option, as it distorts semantics.

But then, we don't need alternatives to the PSL.  The whole point is to detach 
the PSL from the base DMARC spec.  Alternatives can be researched afterwards.


> I think my DBOUND wildcard implementation is wonderful but I don't have much 
> hope of persuading the rest of the world.


And you don't need to persuade it before releasing the base DMARC spec.

AIUI, the purpose of the split is to leave that door opened.


Best
Ale
--