Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Fri, 24 May 2019 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@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 CE9BF120092 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 06:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WLgeq_OwnECG for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2019 06:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 4AC7912003F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 06:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id w144so6936928oie.12 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2019 06:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7osbCzNwd14kcmE3Y+J+R6UXrWHEYFsicSv7Dne9pSw=; b=W1/3Ah1n7K4rm+kBeLvAYSLhk4nsYT3iuq0m7LPY+VpaU+/H805rBvW11LcUXft6rI Q9GEOwmInn3GzjX5B7tFUtt8ImFbFPCNqMvELwfo4qeDsCSMYpaKG7/1ckLUpr+OmeuP Mx61k8LA+rdSCVrKZmj1rOFlUhxHuzzn0aeTffdHZ+XUkUQTG44e/r0KEunkXBpxsRpv lSWlC3A/zVbyNHOipqTFr6evBVRg2aSTKtkeKTJEy+b3Wv/t2fORRgNxLiEBJyrEtxBd +Rg0ZDIoUZZaLg+l6U29fe5uh/0d9+qGHvN4fK7BXGvt++d9D7RHiiE9picdzv/ZqDNN N/1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7osbCzNwd14kcmE3Y+J+R6UXrWHEYFsicSv7Dne9pSw=; b=QvMEW6el8khD3jSs6Xv9e7P/LkBoZNlJnADXM1GSuHNqhwyLInM9T2LwqEjokOYaoc ppnGWOfYnYE8bn1IQNsKdwiOJeS1wDPeX931Ol+v0fI3ny3igdwg+xzkZOhZJ1XusEbd NlZ5hIlh/6/h+QGmecNWeW6tHUmB2Cwkl7bloaQnkB+3DsfNZzsc8pkks/YjOd181R2C xkpQumcq96Vz6AS5sqth3fvrVvNoZKrQSkXekTk/cuxQ/hRLMOt7BWeQH8/gIsYEQcSE 4L1XloxefgPdNBYYXw7O7izTvVdeZHNJBFt1C6qsLxaPaogjEsi7vD9Avpfz6Q87o4rn bAzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWO+PiW6sGnYp2Q+xR2ofB5N1XFmZnMOJ508yL93WurHISFpc/ gZVp4NuZ4glchAqsLpz1hm+IK1Mmp4I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzNYS5RkYJhbtU0IqbDqDAE7rTpjTH9wfTP7SRhdxMDACPPpIDB5OiRTUYHJOUhFTxRmWzrTw==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:e68f:: with SMTP id d137mr3043854oih.14.1558702977179; Fri, 24 May 2019 06:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:75bc:959f:2a1d:49e3? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:75bc:959f:2a1d:49e3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d69sm934552oib.36.2019.05.24.06.02.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2019 06:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61ade6@bluepopcorn.net>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bc94f806-277d-d68d-7928-670112cf0915@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 06:02:50 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5c2fc1da-ae7c-2efe-fda3-47855d61ade6@bluepopcorn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Vi2TguRSFdfjgaUDooAZiD0aQnE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Separating reporting and policy
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: Fri, 24 May 2019 13:03:00 -0000

On 5/23/2019 1:35 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> There are domains that would like to receive reports, but whose usage of
> mail doesn't make it useful to express a policy. Conversely, there are
> domains that want to express a policy but aren't interested in reports.
> I'd like to advocate that DMARC be split up into two different documents
> dealing with reporting and policy separately. If it's useful to have a
> separate document that defines what it means to be "DMARC-compliant"
> that is referenced by both, that would be OK.


I'm not clear what technical or operational problem you are trying to 
solve.  That is, you seem to be proposing a document split without any 
technical changes.  Yes?

While separating or joining segments of specification makes a 
difference, you haven't described what actual usage issues there have 
been that warrant the effort to split this document.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net