IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Thu, 21 May 2020 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 804AF3A0CA8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 16:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=deuaOUZn; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=ePkUo1FW
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 xwQPVJqZLROg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 16:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F45D3A0C9A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 16:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C621DF80271; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1590103046; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=BENRlA8xlVOUjjaLh/VyqlVPrajVlwvQ5ST1XCXTA10=; b=deuaOUZn3SpinIqqAB1zLkTETB6wITq1LBs0/pM4PJa17WAowi5DTfoNtomPZdGPFfK/a Rvn80qhg2+k88GKAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1590103046; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=BENRlA8xlVOUjjaLh/VyqlVPrajVlwvQ5ST1XCXTA10=; b=ePkUo1FWvZim0IPOD3AZqmoWBi7/MgHbtlfpmOb4uqq6TMMaWKxHj853RqM54GwCTN3qv 709LANbMDhDmahAwt0CPt1qF8xg7AvNXt8YCX7J/pJ+D+Ioegdk3tfVclsthY3g9IvzUb7m cKqjTeL4zkqKUfAiCCWTKBMAy4egx2+Lj8Kvx6kYYBug9MX+IfBAav5MaKrd0tygYHn0WV5 Rk9jW0jUTeE7OcpJ0d8ESxMxiK/ZrCyRLRv6XyD99ulrSuQSvUhF5qPxn3qwZBdMlpGP5YD 3wgCwEW6Ci6xEnhgZaqoN5PYwiFK/V3OsrSrnipmVjiwaTub/NlHsPXyUnqQ==
Received: from [192.168.1.184] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B5EDF8009D; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 23:17:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2005211849370.6217@ary.qy>
References: <CAOZAAfP9AiYi2Gpyd2gfhbN5tUmTA5oH4_bOGq_HY4JnqYT+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <r9nefr$12k0$1@gal.iecc.com> <CADyWQ+HNGSQwxvCcsHykG9AN2rVeXCecmrpr4H+d1HDZUYUUUA@mail.gmail.com> <1784228.uJLO1Brz0r@localhost> <CAHej_8mTGEM1P4eU1QbL=Ne=rDkDgeFuxNPKY9zYbqnPmudAPw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2005211849370.6217@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <84D5DBFB-B1C4-44D3-8A01-0330CB4BFC05@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/git-BUc_QXQ3C38KZZQ1OtNmEIA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 49: remove normative requirement on policy tag placement
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: Thu, 21 May 2020 23:17:31 -0000


On May 21, 2020 10:50:37 PM UTC, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>> Making p= an optional tag, even with the default of p=none, I believe
>would
>> further erode receiver confidence in DMARC policy statements, simply
>> because publishing a record with no p= tag provides no evidence that
>the
>> domain owner has given any thought whatsoever to their policy
>statement.
>
>I don't see that making p= optional solves any problems, so I agree we 
>should continue to require it.
>
>"People who don't read the spec and publish garbage" is not a problem
>we 
>solve by changing the spec.

RFC 7489 already says if it's missing receivers SHOULD assume p=none, so I don't see the point in "requiring" something in a record when receivers are already supposed to deal with it being missing.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email