Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 06 April 2019 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 96E8712016F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 17:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=ciMLnBGi; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=E/oV3b0e
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 5iFNRHUV3zej for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 17:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 C289F120043 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 17:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 81793 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2019 00:21:52 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=13f7e.5ca7f120.k1904; bh=hpXlgozCrMziVtclIxG0gg6kmktq8+b6IPwwDqyuihA=; b=ciMLnBGioUEeUQkmTN4ItJ7cCJ9uHtBcgNl8dcO124GWI0hBfeOwbnXZKycrDa8DhjojtzEq5AddDArbsay+HIobaoQYCsvIJemEBPWJ6dW155DWvq5fHyeV5YKJMPwNpNU0t23KUaUucTZIjmhr1Mt9XrQT400UiB/lj2lB6zIUOKXbEBTM2NkognkhodeGL52PGbR4d8vy4j4Ay9mIjGbRTqefNqTJ8exzFJxQqOuxFLtWH63RpjyDtXuG699u
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=13f7e.5ca7f120.k1904; bh=hpXlgozCrMziVtclIxG0gg6kmktq8+b6IPwwDqyuihA=; b=E/oV3b0ep5sRULYTXATtYVGtuV45RMLPr7XLga/iOJVEKd+OZwVu+6MpDJazmeIOF8lxSjY60zpSo5q9gVgne6/orAO4PL0Q7EMXcfYDn4sVl10JXk7RoWNtyzs4U/tTdrdTnvdr4YIIYqhfOBrE8AsdCUZTXi2/CXUC6N0ZeQ0W4GfnsI8lcOwignXQhJlJZubDsxpsPSSI7FA0RH7RvbhywtfP80C9WlfKHgm5Ny1YX+TxdXNAEHjK3+/aplNY
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 06 Apr 2019 00:21:51 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9C07820119E9DC; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 20:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 5 Apr 2019 20:21:50 -0400
Message-Id: <20190406002151.9C07820119E9DC@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <14007257.XvzNgCV7GG@kitterma-e6430>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WatQ_uT7ZZ3iEXEGUTKwkLXK3M8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 00:21:56 -0000

In article <14007257.XvzNgCV7GG@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>There's no change in security considerations because there's no change in the 
>protocol.  We're merely more clearly documenting the interaction.  I'll leave 
>it to the chairs/author/shepherd to decide how to respond to the discuss, but 
>I think "we're just documenting how it implicitly works" is a more likely road 
>to success than "meh, no one really uses that".

Oh, of course.  What I was trying to say was that's why we didn't try
to invent a way to make it work with EAI mailboxes.