Re: [dmarc-ietf] A few old nits

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 22 June 2022 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 AF815C15AAF7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 05:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=EE81ltht; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=N403CqQO
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 6Mo2byL81hdO for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 93097C157B55 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01DCF802E7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1655901541; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=Fzafw+xy1ThhGbm9qaR1gMh4CGd+hCVkBw3zIo7ppV4=; b=EE81ltht0jyhx8HM4zk/Et5ygaPW/k50QnDcC/z3/43TKNOg1qWZoS9vGGWRS1T2x6VTU ndRPSh237/IEUA0AQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1655901541; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=Fzafw+xy1ThhGbm9qaR1gMh4CGd+hCVkBw3zIo7ppV4=; b=N403CqQOiioZB602ABuo6OFpUaT09bjt1b8HW2DbDBbBG2TXXKbDahhBwrSEy94DUGF1n 3LiwsCuSqpuRH74Sr9kZQ7u8aRl3GX8nVWGGKKxeaynRUGMJl/fIXTiSjUShZOmgb/j2CoD r2pkq/UDYXiFdYhvXXiWHSIv7nEKLQK4LrETPyas9SOAoXSCCdngwuAqzyssAYttz1RHAQR VxGMrhMRkSUCETQ3IUppIQ/VaZvT5Sjxcd7mcZhorpbKYp65WEC8uZbbQ+t9/a5rwAKCWsj TsV87J8DTpNBkaF64uZnqs1R4b/4cWpzdoXn9E/EVmvEtspX9j7xc0xpHCcQ==
Received: from zini-1880.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CE0F8020E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:39:01 -0400
Message-ID: <2597405.nbnHmP34a0@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <19483ccf-54a4-f25e-fabf-9c836152165c@tana.it>
References: <19483ccf-54a4-f25e-fabf-9c836152165c@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TDNb5ewD-Iw_r3rPg8bp-RU0rsE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A few old nits
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: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:39:07 -0000

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 6:06:30 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> These were already there in older versions, I only saw them no.
> 
> Section 4.6, DNS Tree Walk
> 
>     The relevant DMARC record for these purposes is not necessarily the
>     DMARC policy record found in DNS at the same level as the name label
>     for the domain in question.  Instead, some domains will inherit their
>     DMARC policy records from parent domains one level or more above them
>     in the DNS hierarchy.  Similarly, the Organizational Domain may be
>     found at a higher level in the DNS hierarchy.
> 
> That text can be misleading.  The second line really means that the DMARC
> policy record was NOT found in DNS at the same level.  In no case a policy
> defined at the same level can be overridden.

I agree.  How about changing "Instead, some domains will inherit their DMARC 
policy records from parent domains one level or more above them in the DNS 
hierarchy" to "Instead, domains which have a DMARC record will use that as the 
DMARC policy record even in cases where the Organizational Domain is a parent 
domains one level or more above them in the DNS hierarchy"?  There's no case 
where there's a policy for a domain, that's the org domain and then a higher 
level domain in the tree is used for policy.  I think this more correctly 
describes the distinction.
 
> Section 4.7, DMARC Policy Discovery
> 
> OLD
>              The DMARC policy to be applied to the message will be the
>     record found at one of these three locations:
> 
> NEW
>              The DMARC policy to be applied to the message will be IN the
>     record found at one of these three locations:

I agree this is more correct.

> Later on:
> 
>     If a retrieved policy record does not contain a valid "p" tag, or
>     contains an "sp" tag that is not valid, then:
> 
> What about "np"?

The np= tag should have been included.  That was probably copied from RFC 7489 
and not correctly updated.  It needs something about 'np=' tag if the domain 
does not exist added.

Scott K