Re: [dmarc-ietf] What is a policy domain? an org domain? How do we not break existing DMARC?

[Douglas Foster <[e-mail]>]

If you are determined to submit your own text, perhaps you could read and
acknowledge the draft that has already been posted.

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, 7:41 PM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Which has nothing to do with what is a policy domain, an org domain, or
> how
> not to break existing DMARC.  As I suggested earlier, we can decide what
> to
> call the tags independent of the policy lookup and org domain
> determination.
> I think we have those things resolved, modulo me having time to write it
> up in
> detail.  Perhaps you could start a new thread on this topic.
>
> Scott K
>
> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 6:19:25 PM EST Douglas Foster wrote:
> > It helps to know the assumptions that have led John to such incorrect
> > conclusions.
> >
> > When moving from a PSL to the DNS, the primary obstacle has always been
> > missing information.    Therefore, one goal of this project is exactly to
> > induce people to update their DMARC records, to supply information that
> is
> > currently missing.   We are attempting to do what DBOUND tried and failed
> > to do - insert boundary information into DNS using information published
> by
> > registrars and the registered organizations.
> >
> > Ale has correctly assessed that in the new design, a DMARC record can
> play
> > one of four roles.   Evaluators must code for all four of these
> > possibilities, regardless of how many token values we define.   With four
> > roles, we have five information states:  explicit indicators for
> Registrar,
> > Org, Both, None, and the fallback result of NULL.  Anyone who has ever
> > tried to interpret incomplete data knows that a null result is different
> > from a default value, and that explicit data is always preferable to
> > guessing a default value to use when confronted with null.
> >
> > Evaluators will be required to cope with a NULL result by assigning those
> > policy records to one of the four roles.   The assigned role will be
> > context-sensitive, which is one of the reasons that NULL and NONE are not
> > equivalent.    Fortunately, we expect that the correct default can be
> > applied most of the time.   However, the proposal to project five states
> > into three, using "psd=(y,n,null)", is an unforced error that cannot be
> > justified.
> >
> > There is also a huge communication error introduced by assuming that
> > "psd=n" will be reliably configured to mean "org=y".    There are a
> > relatively small number of registrars who will be publishing DMARC
> > information, against millions of organizations that are publishing, or
> will
> > publish, DMARC policies.   We need the language optimized to ensure that
> > organizations publish their flag data correctly.
> >
> > We also have a nomenclature problem connected to the choice of
> "psd=value"
> > as a token.   We have recognized that there are public registrars and
> > private registrars, and that DMARC must cope with both types.   Private
> > registrars are not PSOs and we should not bless them with a title that
> they
> > do not deserve.   Our document needs to be updated to reflect this
> > reality.   Throughout the text, we should have "Registrars", and
> > "Registration Domains", not PSOs and PSDs, except for introductory
> material
> > where we explain the difference between the two and its implications for
> > tree walk.   The registrar role should be indicated with "REG", not with
> > "PSD".
> >
> > Doug Foster
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 12:14 PM John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >> No.  This just adds more useless complexity that is unlikely to get
> > >
> > > implemented.
> > >
> > > > While composing a DMARC record, setting role=org seems more likely
> than
> > >
> > > psd=n.
> > >
> > > For the umpteenth time, the goal here is to be as compatible as
> possible
> > > with the way that DMARC works now.  An important part of that is not to
> > > ask people to change their existing DMARC records because we know that
> > > most of them won't.
> > >
> > > The normal case, like 99.99% of the time, is that the PSD does not
> publish
> > > a DMARC record at all.  The org domain has a DMARC record if it sends
> mail
> > > or its subdomains use relaxed alignment.  The way Scott and I propose
> to
> > > do a tree walk, that will get the same alignment as now with no
> changes to
> > > the DMARC record.  That includes millions, maybe tens of millions of
> > > domains.
> > >
> > > A few PSDs publish DMARC records, either because they have a policy
> about
> > > their registrants' mail, or because the PSD itself has an MX.  We want
> > > them to add psd=y.  That includes 52 domains.  (I counted them.)
> > >
> > > As an extreme corner case, if you are registered under a PSD that
> > > publishes a DMARC record  but erroneously doesn't include psd=y, you
> can
> > > use psd=n as a kludge to prevent evil sibling alignment.  That
> currently
> > > includes about 45 of those 52 domains, but I think we can get it close
> to
> > > zero because we have contacts at many of them.
> > >
> > > I'm finding it hard to understand the advantage of a scheme that
> requires
> > > millions of DMARC records to change rather than one that changes 52.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> > > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> https://jl.ly
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dmarc mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>