IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dmarc-ietf] Again on Report-ID, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-08.txt

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 28 March 2023 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 2DC02C14CEFE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b="xExhAMKM"; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b="ASjVWns5"
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 O1EuaCgeNVTV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985F3C151B07 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1680025181; bh=g10qGT3sdRwbuWlA7gPZrobutoTZBI0KWrKI+bouKJY=; h=Author:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=xExhAMKMuiwEjNCYiLXIj+rh7d7L1CFTRETp1CiJYujHMfnTkD1tLPaJMTkP1VeCz i4eMib4b2PpYtqr1EmACg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1680025181; bh=g10qGT3sdRwbuWlA7gPZrobutoTZBI0KWrKI+bouKJY=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=ASjVWns5wbR1xTb2hMY1i5Tn6L9axgypy103kN7AVjGuoYTjSyMRCg7qi9Z+rxpZr AA306KKYuaYn5EVE38IkJSQsAHbP0GJsy+9cGSnhHA/WetUS8U4phi4cNvXzwyg6n2 B9ZMt7gI0PMfOf9Kq/R1ZZflxWo49eZesZGDofGXUzX2Cd8YNsNVCyB8gbfBq
Original-Subject: Again on Report-ID, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-08.txt
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0E7.000000006423265D.00003DC9; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:39:41 +0200
Message-ID: <72f6c115-0720-6d1e-6942-20a6a5095dcc@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:39:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <167993454302.11169.10772353959635417283@ietfa.amsl.com> <4313263.H7jo6l85BW@localhost> <MN2PR11MB4351233B049BF8B25F96032CF7889@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4351233B049BF8B25F96032CF7889@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/aJZEUweV54m9Hm_NY-clY5_L7Fo>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Again on Report-ID, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-08.txt
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:39:57 -0000

On Tue 28/Mar/2023 17:11:46 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> I only made one minor modification there based on a ticket JohnL had submitted.

Now I read it:

    ridtxt = ("<" *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-") ["@" (ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-")]
    ">") / ((ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-") ["@" *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-")])

It is wrong, because Subject: already has ridtxt / '<' ridtxt '>', so we're 
allowing <<foo@bar>>.  In addition, a star (*) is missing for the second (ALPHA...

Couldn't we import RFC 5322's dot-atom-text rather than reinventing the wheel? 
They have:

    message-id      =   "Message-ID:" msg-id CRLF
    msg-id          =   [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]
    id-left         =   dot-atom-text / obs-id-left
    id-right        =   dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal / obs-id-right

Indeed, Message-Id: is the header where that value should've been specified. 
Using the Subject: is a run-of-the-mill expedient for those who are unable to 
set Message-Id:.  Now that is downgraded to MAY...

Section 2.1.3, confusingly mentioning where those unique IDs are specified, 
remains distant from Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 where the coincidence with the 
filename and with the <report_id> element in the content is given.  Shouldn't 
they be collapsed into a single section?


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email