IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree Walk Damage

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 03 May 2023 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 1AFD5C151B30 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2023 08:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 VkFaZBnHc8Gq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2023 08:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f43.google.com (mail-ej1-f43.google.com [209.85.218.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 F2F28C151B33 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2023 08:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f43.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-94f109b1808so1029629166b.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 May 2023 08:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683129057; x=1685721057; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gp43UQfjf8ev4Frmd6YF7FYWPY4QMZFMSz1engTRDeQ=; b=OhzL/FEAR5svky2rPmEaoPpWkLhzdINEYb79UXq2C/QuOuF5AXbR7z2Fr7MZnml/V3 m6mS7+RjUQtfK18M6pRyGFlMpAHrr0Trczh1Qj9/N+j3xkeR3VdKXMtsBsI0ChDU7wGo HizXIsKbabG9CBuZ3M7TJnEs1W/DzBx23vBWhzS9IvR0LpMWniQTFD1jU19GeMk07gER S77v4jrIQuJqUtszn8PtoqNdVHnMxUBD2l2/xtf4T16jT2weJpn8VlFhVB2YBBCRNr+x n6QBZBPV0y8daw0ZTfDJNnSDwCDCMZz7oxLihlT7eu/faTwdzAcVxdtCRS3H9Kz2APhJ neKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzrXtllrUVtT4sYQmEHn4Nq71BLtHNjNuisc5BynIjUk8gsAuaD 1zbrWAxNZMqV6nEzV/sM5Ulki3BDsQjV14ATOQDqi1hL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5tF53ZDtmiETjLGHKWtyNIvb2OioOgdUokdkxBwOYRoo4kv5vCLWX+Mxs1bhJLdC2SjVd5nlpHxTr/EbhaeAs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:36c5:b0:94f:1a23:2f1b with SMTP id bj5-20020a17090736c500b0094f1a232f1bmr3410841ejc.24.1683129056857; Wed, 03 May 2023 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH48ZfzG5RYXet=EP2Gazcf+e0dJiNTOA_-XD8khk=t2=B2DWw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48ZfzG5RYXet=EP2Gazcf+e0dJiNTOA_-XD8khk=t2=B2DWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 11:50:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJbb-C0tY+FcDbBt+edRUpgwOC1dc61XN3nB6+NXufUNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Y8Yt0JL0YGsq8LZcGjzRe8F4IXo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Tree Walk Damage
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, 03 May 2023 15:51:01 -0000

And now following this up as chair:

I believe this topic has been discussed at length before and is well
settled: the working group's rough consensus on the tree walk is
clear.  Todd, please close issue 113 as settled, with no document
change needed.

Let's please avoid opening tickets on already-settled issues.

Barry, DMARC WG chair

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 6:46 AM Douglas Foster
<dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have opened issue 113 to formally document my strong objections to the current tree walk:
>
> Current DMARC policies are configured based on RFC7489 and the PSL, and evaluators obtain results based on those implementation decisions. Domain owners may have many reasons to want an alternative to the PSL: (1) The PSL may contain errors that impact the domain owner's mail flow. (2) The PSL is implemented in different iterations by different evaluators. (3) The RFC7489 / PSL algorithm does not allow for partitioned alignment within an organization.
>
> Nonetheless, an evaluator has no justification for implementing an algorithm which produces different results unless the domain owner indicates that he prefers usage of that different algorithm. This can be accomplished by tagging his DMARC policies to indicate which of the four possible roles applies to a particular policy: Org Top, Subdomain, Org Top-and-Bottom (single label registry), and Org Bottom (bottom layer of a multiple-layer private registry), and DMARCbis should define those tags The current upward-walk proposal will cause damage by directing evaluators to apply an undesired and often incorrect re-interpretation of domain owner intent and associated alignment boundaries.
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email