IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 31 July 2021 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 728C33A13E3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 11:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Mxfe0_BJc4pd for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 11:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa30.google.com (mail-vk1-xa30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a30]) (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 A95E03A13D1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 11:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa30.google.com with SMTP id d15so2746369vka.13 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 11:27:58 -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=iCOBbJpeUpTcLuNQ5yYH2zuprS23ipJ7qKI+rDwpGEs=; b=TEACR1fwqocvL94Hda7bZtbe4SXBCDnjMrUDsoiw7ZCp/jJU8dlUsoVR5QsFwneiqg rcqkPjjYpPayw3NILGrg9LU+YyGw2Aq0qx3TUPWVJLg4/UAabSv8cN55WEV0YyYf8VdI W/E9mx0mKuS//iKo6V2hjelzNKPzCMlncjWNIPA1hLJZ5rMeQQpLHiDDjXzxLEAY2/ex pK26KFzR2fbO4GHltNCR6jwDmuHxLFzV8DG85ro7hkYiZrtOtEBa3yMTbRTReBeKKfm/ xJjEBmVKNlaw6u0POXlLnIj7qozBQpKNLcwSwb/SqR+teBrPzujTV4FeKJdctNvPbOnk JAgA==
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=iCOBbJpeUpTcLuNQ5yYH2zuprS23ipJ7qKI+rDwpGEs=; b=DhSexhDYmHCA4D0CD/Rp9Ju77H6l3+pOdzjG9J2ZHdRNs+SIjwECqbtbvV1viKLpR2 rQ7F6iWLv+SB9ov4k2zdcmj+6S5jWUJLATCBhjCWV9QT95zlSD6AlpPA0Z+MCP/BnJP/ QXOI6Ld3psMDYgO3lq4xof4jt5GbhMmjwL89ZHz6hLB+Xorjnr38rwJ/xWAst4takjDe RY912ww2ADWn9gQ8D++E/RPVoXZ4vuNc9jgph/V+EYLI+a2/6PYfCdyoPFdnLmoZp1xz rkmwX7oEfVc2L3yMhf3UxMWhq8P8X8qKQq14W2ljCasbDdGsBGI0Np3RPBe7g61m7cmy MDhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qxchfhsEwtIOEAwZvyc/bqTJKmafvr/npXiZ1romOc+JfEXCu 41Kuktix+1VGrSMe+cFxrZNqsH/M/HsHm064rNs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydPpCYe/JjI9RQ0D9egK2LwgzZgVSNgAP+qfM1tMJ5e30unMs/vkJvSUkoV3Rm24U435HW539acIjFbek9324=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:a687:: with SMTP id p129mr5271857vke.13.1627756076370; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHej_8m4W_k_r9SV6reNJA7aMGFCkK451tjvQGtrPNwRtJwC8A@mail.gmail.com> <CAH48Zfz91SHxGNc6YZ8d_=_yf=Y-iJoZDm_t_ybBv2yfbJPPRg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH48Zfz91SHxGNc6YZ8d_=_yf=Y-iJoZDm_t_ybBv2yfbJPPRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 11:27:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwb114xmTg7Qe5wAg2q316ih4x7RpS8WAomdnjsWDyd0Uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com>
Cc: Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b68ea705c86f7e68"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kx-1gl8R1_Xw5_N7nNH78YZ0XEI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Some Proposed Language for a New pct Tag Defintion
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, 31 Jul 2021 18:28:10 -0000

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 5:13 PM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstandards@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, it seems the extended status codes have very limited
> deployment.   When I searched my recent history, I could only find codes
> 2.0.0 and 2.6.0, which communicate nothing incremental.
>

Indeed; I would like to understand what 2.6.0 is meant to convey.  As I
read the IANA registry entries, "2" means success but "6" means there was a
media type error.

Would it be reasonable to add language saying that we RECOMMEND that
> evaluators use extended status codes, for both accepted and rejected
> messages, to indicate the message authentication status?   We could
> highlight the codes that are particularly relevant to this need.
>

I'm not sure about RECOMMENDED, but reminding readers of this mechanism for
providing additional information seems at least harmless to me.

If we say RECOMMENDED, I'd be inclined to think we should say something
about both producers of these codes and consumers of them, to encourage
interoperability.  There's no point in making a strong push toward
generating them if nobody has any incentive to do something with them when
they're observed.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email