Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 17:07 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 C13C13A24F5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, 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=nVIq+eBo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=a5ydcKKd
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 YNFhwTzHZfPM for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38E1C3A250A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43FABF80120; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:07:41 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1585674461; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=XQme6pU20IGvq/AHIhFQhL5SFAl4vLbhTwLPY+glIvI=; b=nVIq+eBoEsCJuPI8qEYsvcVUMGw5pZvv7URZh2NXMa67siwPj44dAgEdLuIiszlqaCy9U +qQ8LkBtBNFaYqPBQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1585674461; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=XQme6pU20IGvq/AHIhFQhL5SFAl4vLbhTwLPY+glIvI=; b=a5ydcKKdzUjL1BUxaDDK5s9RouO8cETb/KaJaXnd8wYpS7kXPzqFgNmtLE7/ubaR09ubi E8ywXkANCfaAMXHlmBgqAW3tvG4dSNbUDEPnJe06+6eU7y6EyJsrKgagQcLhGJytXlW2bYq pUXpWRWV/qa7+w4caNIp77BGnTNaTHB2zMro70w/j0LaGVnzzCa5eZ1zRxrhanmBP2VR7Hv SthMt30Tg7ydLV8qeSnXmJUc+GXpLG4gpJ05ZNkEhh+JGDM7sxvXzlp97mNNr5ScRsh1pqH mOByx6FGl1ALFkqYhn9lM8uKdnsZMWbyUCylFbcjQd1uNPpSYs7+ULGTLaYw==
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 F03D9F80042; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:07:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:07:38 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20200331165652.84C5916D54B5@ary.qy>
References: <20200331165652.84C5916D54B5@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: <A02A6BEB-D253-4091-9064-3BEFE67E1D03@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/mIuNpclYqqmDEz7YuolqIBtNc-M>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:08:04 -0000


On March 31, 2020 4:56:51 PM UTC, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>In article <3295240.vh5t8hYAJM@sk-desktop> you write:
>>> If you want it to be a domain, the ABNF should say:
>>> 
>>>       authserv-id = domain-name
>
>>> This is not strictly backward compatible with the current text, but
>I
>>> don't think I've ever seen an authserv-id which wasn't syntactically
>a
>>> domain name.
>>
>>I've seen bare host names used.  I guess that's syntactically a domain
>name 
>>also, but might not be what you expect if you assume it's really a
>domain 
>>name.  It probably doesn't matter.
>
>I don't see any reason to exclude them.  We could do this:
>
>      authserv-id     = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
>
>Where sub-domain is imported from 5321 for ASCII mail and 6531 for EAI
>mail.

That does allow IP address literals.  Do we want that?

Scott K