Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 13 July 2019 04:34 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 0B7AD12004D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 21:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 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=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Lf/U7qkG; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=pPV9EtwF
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 E7J-mZfhn1HG for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 21:34:13 -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 5A51B120019 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 21:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 62979 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2019 04:34:10 -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=f601.5d295f42.k1907; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=j8keLxaYqvVT9r/LSIfnBTkug7b3onGYIxw3o/FjEgM=; b=Lf/U7qkGmZjkyTqusq528xLqvDxjRlj4KYBeY3NlpNSrlmlWG7oknfQzTEYxFnGUGrVb/FNIKOqoMF0sfytSdsm1/NVeHW93bRQFhbTAzY/bRhBExJY96r8sNvli+8M2q5baTbkSSG0MnKo8kO1LUVQOeRDwlYkHkpgslpZG5yq4Q9yyNqCzROWx0ZPk+XivVWeX1FMg3EgMpR1cQ6AJEsGolk4nN5K/4qM1wIvjf/hccr6n3WRqkJb0jHGPQirw
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=f601.5d295f42.k1907; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=j8keLxaYqvVT9r/LSIfnBTkug7b3onGYIxw3o/FjEgM=; b=pPV9EtwFNEpKhEdLEdykbOkh0dKb3PVxdYNRl6ylb9hJxVd1OWNnqbSjM21INeXdrBKG1PH0249azl26gq8k+sKbM4xnNaElts8xevLeiryN0UrFLZ11osk9GTJyTV1v0DD2YGi2Ura7mep/ieF8e0uKTWeFZoQTsE9kF1M2t/wd6+r6uqRqHZwT1TrZz5lrnT3413qFA6u7l3zf/NsjGTPwhCWfXef91yD4icZ3hvF0dM+SmfbATCD8W27VActw
Received: from ary.local ([73.33.141.87]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 13 Jul 2019 04:34:10 -0000
Received: by ary.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id A5EB64A61C0; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 00:34:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 13 Jul 2019 00:34:09 -0400
Message-Id: <20190713043409.A5EB64A61C0@ary.local>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
In-Reply-To: <2902055.CzhLQO0xIX@l5580>
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/aqrRLnXHVI45EHU_LEiaAU2OTTY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-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: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 04:34:15 -0000

In article <2902055.CzhLQO0xIX@l5580> you write:
>Here's the definition we have in the draft now:
>
>> 2.6.  Non-existent Domains
>> 
>>    For DMARC [RFC7489] purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain name
>>    that publishes none of A, AAAA, or MX records that the receiver is
>>    willing to accept.  This is a broader definition than that in
>>    NXDOMAIN [RFC8020].
>
>That's what I was expecting this new tag to apply to (and I think matches 
>their expectation, but they can speak for themselves).

That's OK.

>Another way to say what's in 2.6 now might be:
>
>... a domain for which there is a NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records.

Not so OK -- if there's no records at all at or below a name you really will get NXDOMAIN.

R's,
John