[dmarc-ietf] ABNF update to dmarc-psd

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 07 June 2021 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 2E0873A13B7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 0wOGPB5iakBO for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 774AC3A13B9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id o8so24315609ljp.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Gnwt+8anRQPAjltv9Cv0wtKPauJ498JKPmv4fP3o66M=; b=A0Q02rKrdKijjxPQqAQOKzCGpYLIyl149wsEECYu3WaNgdaQGYvYr3pt0zIMjtGX12 VqrqausanH/AbJVdlAu3P9JCx+CPtYVw1Wz0UPPLXjpx0vR98k1E/0Q0bKLDm1DcApOd 3YJLM8hFoTHixHQfwZ8YinHqRZeLnvJcL4h6aInlJAPBFlvQhRSJlDyex5/uzqdFa0nQ dFIc7/oYvz/M0lfnHfSXZCVT0tbMxSpT4oN1s4Aa/pDUe+joSvXrlg6PhePwOJXINLDe zNcsZXK25W7UI2dEVVmRiYgw8Kh95YOCxbTLU6n+KqGAZpBIYMAhNZoI3r5/Oht0NZ3B aGOg==
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=Gnwt+8anRQPAjltv9Cv0wtKPauJ498JKPmv4fP3o66M=; b=WwrSIEByg27e1X7z4t31bgTmDKY1cImC+aL2n/gwSgwQmjwsMkwqv+KqW3mNGCvScW EyYYElrbYkTrNmLQ5DVMK14ZkoBuNRl3HM3hTxRlUD+1B4E2rtGkkdF1h9I4PpVflqmM 1+OwZf4NfO73scqhiHWt9et/U98RdBCBuvzuU32/+qhumiZmmOUTrTKTrPzKGCXmI/yV n2e+CXWSBDbTAA1EGoxgae2XZRHXPqKjheU5SIRe/B7RJx3+l2ijFQ6aESLG7m2W2VuS ugsU9wn7mEODLtgMDP9P1IFJmF80hn/u4RCbQmiNFeShD2QgXtdZogK1EjuwZ3buAMIG wG4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533bI5rzER8mLHlL97cqx+Go9nJ+BtE6MpHOwClSzk3KjdkcbSoL yk7emdD5grCcMcBojoorg3Z/WaGvZem75ijImMbAKYNj+rQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJVSNOuR4eAmeyAa/ldNzuoxeAH/ZqQPlHm+mXfDTjcIQ854FSn7Cjkgta3EDYXflAE2vjx9RTGg5oKMCmqck=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5347:: with SMTP id t7mr15986177ljd.464.1623103827091; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:10:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+FkHUr1DPHpepFU=1_HQi3hOKvSe3bvb4QC+cOqy-OGEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c250705c4344f5d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WY5iMAdZTXZL25KRn0w7yGwPv4g>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] ABNF update to dmarc-psd
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: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 22:10:35 -0000

All

When I raised the point for dmarc-bis making sure that new tags define
their ABNF, I realized that the PSD document does no such thing.
It does describe the definition, as it's the same as the "sp" tag.


I added the following section to dmarc-psd updating 7489 as such:

3.3.  Changes in Section 6.4 "Formal Definition"

   The ABNF for DMARC shall updated to include a new definition "dmarc-
   nprequest" which is defined as:

               dmarc-nprequest =  "np" *WSP "=" *WSP
                   ( "none" / "quarantine" / "reject" )


   The "dmarc-record" definition is also updated to include the
   following:

                 [dmarc-sep dmarc-nprequest]



I am well aware that the dmarc-bis draft has much cleaner ABNF, but this
document still updates 7489, so
we must follow what is there.


I've pushed a new version -15 into my own repo:
https://github.com/moonshiner/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

I'd like the WG to double check what is here, making sure this will be
enough.  I'll push out -15 by the
end of the week.

thanks
tim