[dmarc-ietf] Collecting DMARC issues and nits for DMARC WG phase III - DMARC standardization

Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@sethblank.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 4CF331200FA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 14:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 TjZztcVxrgDI for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 14:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79D1A12016F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 14:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id y25so3017110oih.11 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 May 2019 14:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VHcaRVnVIAmhir/vuWj09fGEJK8NmAGwHqHTvfpokfg=; b=Mgt7g2HwVR1og1NEzWNsHOU7k/dE9SAYEx61Bts9XmPcQHahv4Odw5bTqF5aHZw4Lh eqqg/Kq//PSxLtjYQzlCVThKnOKDlkQkLzhlmoceb2yTGnb9OQ+mVu2pbZdfkZhRd4N4 gGAeor98UPe7qPAHRcAnJrsrg/bob0u+4exbnGecbGSp/O4fE5/jthK+4VuO8pEsX75+ nRasLR5iUjkAvRdVBsDWMIIp0w2wmc2nT8Y/99qd26/Ycn4zTNZKR7BudKNHs+cgb5/K t8zHV3zFjb3IkBpbh77n85InSb+7LS5k4YHAJCZ14/m+u2kf/Jt+2pgiO4fJ2EdKXiCm rfFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VHcaRVnVIAmhir/vuWj09fGEJK8NmAGwHqHTvfpokfg=; b=mBdwSdvP7I4pqx02eNXC18p+Es04Etz9ouBnltQXK16lKaEFH2V5sDadyqzZ29H/y/ 8TIs2RKSHFLN5JYXdkmvN4HEssB+zNjGQX7IJVA1lypHfsUxaW0PGYAfD5JnLDqLCdaX deoxLYKyWeEJx+7PvpUR3aI6aS72FwxEqZA8oX8BfVUWKLipXvD4O/BiyShfcKSYS5O9 cofSm4ouXNcqq5WUcy7k0Krp5XsphUcTLJeMpOq33Zdjgw/U64fDyfJTmdZgDCG+whid 0AMuPRzm5zlhD84ATE7OpKBbDkhmebTkbX2vCKnG2UYDNX7UzsWATsdOkciIqUuucDNT jIyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWQvD5qDf41o/kXFVGQ2HaC3lGTzDf4oLgoGsvKe8DOUeE8YTL0 9hdiEXkZ4sQ4DjUAFjrrQnaJMY1T9+C8YKCvXdHAIsTXrpGRug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyZm1AbAZGKIkHKNIeY1hWPBKktCn4oyGWormQaxhLNGsbKkHTyH2eL+IsZs3cxfa2E2Nqtt2EDJllaz49A1WI=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5344:: with SMTP id h65mr2897056oib.157.1557437003409; Thu, 09 May 2019 14:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 14:23:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WMcWf3KP6mpBeaniVHsv9fmWh+yYWr7T5EV3a_aecKgjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059492205887b0fc7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/V849omSaoK93PbmJluwuwlwm80I>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Collecting DMARC issues and nits for DMARC WG phase III - DMARC standardization
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, 09 May 2019 21:24:00 -0000

With the group officially in Phase III of the DMARC WG charter, our work is
now to explicitly review and refine the DMARC specification, with the goal
of generating a standards track document.

The draft-ietf-dmarc-psd experiment is part of this process, as is the
conversation about defining proper ARC reporting XML for DMARC reports.

This email is an explicit CALL FOR ISSUES AND NITS about the DMARC spec
which you believe should be officially discussed as part of the DMARCbis
process. Please start a separate thread for each item you have. I'll make
sure all are properly in the issue tracker and get addressed.

Please send in your items no later than *Friday, May 24th*. After this
point, we'll be focusing on progressing the DMARCbis process, not gathering
new issues.

Below are a list of nits already in the datatracker. I'll be kicking off
threads for several other issues I'm aware of shortly.

Thanks everyone!

Seth, as Secretary

Active issues for DMARCbis in the data tracker:
- SPF 4408 vs 7208: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/1
- Flow of operations text: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/2
- Two tiny nits in 6.6.2 and 6.6.3:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/2
- Definition of "fo" parameter: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/4
- Definition of "pct" parameter: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/5
- Fuzzy normative language around filenames:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6
- ABNF for dmarc-record is slightly wrong:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/7
- Perverse incentives to use p!=none & pct=0:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/22
- objection to maintaining registry for all participating public suffixes:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/24
- Link to "URI" reference broken in several sections:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/25