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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 15 July 2019 12:30 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 76221120112 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Ml-xk9g8_9_8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x235.google.com (mail-oi1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (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 77A891200F4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x235.google.com with SMTP id a127so12477519oii.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cHfVSiT0ADyX6T2hi4wqmpEZLC3/Yd0afVlwAj9u6/0=; b=VUEE91zGdeOiTHJNf6dQGuIo8iaHtgVTqaVsGFYpmmtSSqs+Q8Zi/d8CVlkt0nqBPi 3rSBxXxQNx+/UfIEo4JSLwXAf0l7YFiiJ4whzQ3y8drF398LuVtgjQ33bfgucFERlFIZ zr7MNLvWJo6+pI52v+GjUPLkFI8TcsckJfPbRhFAZlQtPRiG/Fr55y8FXZ1Acq3uBY4T AsaJUDwxGOIggezyL301vVfvx0N5ct+TJMarg6RNEATfbJ4HYMIFyZ/10IV16nIWCMoo UMZ+1+bKPb0M16CqbBb74nTOv7aSvpSAz2BwyvC1FG7rSZbdWQxgY8gt23zwRQ7QTCoH wv4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cHfVSiT0ADyX6T2hi4wqmpEZLC3/Yd0afVlwAj9u6/0=; b=F5ZLFzANi/iVkwZ6KHhP0n637cI23cSGAgEA26D446dBJ/Sb2elJMVdP+tSoyWejEj ei/6xF2M8ayE9dq/5XOiLEJ8RHzLKuPdPL6Ap8gbNKLeHb/WJ7sQqXMk2oH9G92JT/OR WNbGLby4+kGI2H58KRHkileCaAYXf76uQ7CwUyb4M5RH9YV8S62xJtEoc72nkSuhycSh BDVF+ZZXdrX4kMjXfVX8DPOivoV508ieXzjh8ZpNlV+gXxHdlLVRFa544x6+b1L6fP1p rt71MdhvuYIFAwiZmVT8JsQuf3z3G4Ltxp1GcS6haCud1yVSUTmOh1rp0ez8hB7oujwo aGxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUe9aGn1wdhUNcZLoBZAfWeRiq7fokGLV/nCtYiHr4sdloIld6O u4LRugksmtDN789dqge2gdRRRX1q8r2wKQO6FtJTlW8z
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzqr6V0PG5QHXK87zf9ThmxlSKDH+Fo8v1JpZ22vWYzlOFsKIwpX6nLIFCcEPNB0PRBCTE/75dC93WP/t1wO+w=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4255:: with SMTP id p82mr13264537oia.6.1563193846721; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <1893230.9INSBCnb99@l5580> <CABuGu1rCF1C1rK9PpbEiDmP+85FvgB_aSuvieGL=hRcrFGXNBg@mail.gmail.com> <1958020.28HeBAo97T@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <1958020.28HeBAo97T@l5580>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:30:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+EKBE3uJGziWi+8aV_Ya+WFJ23e-HAudMwSmV-6fHpzSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2f10c058db76d0b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/bWeM40o7ZdyhYIbiXfib5WdztbU>
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: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:30:50 -0000

I totally agree with the logic behind the experiment.

>From a document point of view, should we not document the 'np' part of the
experiment?

"The experiment will also evaluate the effectiveness of the 'np' tag for
non-existent subdomains. "

Tim



On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
wrote:

> On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:54:57 PM EDT Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
> > > > 3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only
> NXDOMAINs
> > >
> > > The limited feedback during WGLC has been favorable to this.
> > >
> > > This will require a rather larger change to the document than the other
> > > issues, but they are manageable and I believe I have most of the
> relevant
> > > text
> > > from earlier revisions.
> > >
> > > I think we should include this.
> >
> > I am much more concerned with adding another tag that can only be used
> in a
> > PSD-DMARC record. I would be much more open to make a "normative" change
> to
> > the DMARC tag list (RFC 7489 section 11.4) to define np for any DMARC
> > record, than to make this a special case for PSD-DMARC records.
>
> I agree.  My intent is to add the tag to be used experimentally for any
> DMARC
> record.  Part of the experiment is to see if it's useful beyond PSD.
>
> Scott K
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>