Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 21 October 2019 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 6578A120096 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 wWdALL0ubPdl for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6092B120043 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1571669674; bh=kJSPWFqeT8Xe2MIsLtGh2oQyZmIOU25IDjdjcsfvgGw=; l=994; h=References:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C09Aqmkj97EM2Ho/Hw4ibKmPpM6UOxAswO2E1noYrJR/gh467KVgXmM24Z32YJtSN 8+LWXWYp5/bPKBIQGt8nycuJfacOJNh68xY1AKlsFEsTxYZUJc6SCv/I8BKiJN9V7l 7b4AG+6w37C+i8/XHDth7CgQWZRm2fGEzGY6/SAagBhX4q/51Y+5JcKIhzPWT
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA id 00000000005DC077.000000005DADC6AA.00005DFA; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:54:34 +0200
References: <e580ada3-d9b5-0e5b-9ac3-eade41ac92d2@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa5yR5dVzkDSD48MDgpUa11+ri=KOwrNSqOxi8fB2i6PA@mail.gmail.com> <eabefc6b-7542-1a46-4272-b786433ed0b5@tana.it> <4783309.BXR8ZdE9c3@l5580> <CAL0qLwb5FAaYZ7AX_H=aeUFkv8cvY+xd1bQ5uCDp4tmrbx2CQg@mail.gmail.com> <7a21b80b-e6bb-d8b9-cf63-601a8d1e47e7@tana.it> <C1E711A8-F3A6-4A20-B71D-53FA773A61D9@kitterman.com> <aca25d30-3b01-4eaf-6d0b-3bae6f3f796b@tana.it> <CABuGu1ogeUjW181MMOv3kApZR5njMMH6_84EnHxF0tDq6bhBkA@mail.gmail.com> <db4b1289-31cc-9b9e-bb5c-01bf8d6a37b3@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZcBGL8syD8FyOUkVqMzsmj4=uYM0NaSU2O3hte02AZVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Message-ID: <e45b7175-713e-da69-cc18-d0e4b59410c3@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:54:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZcBGL8syD8FyOUkVqMzsmj4=uYM0NaSU2O3hte02AZVg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/oGxXbgNrr1CdAHlNS2hbOfhh6So>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
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, 21 Oct 2019 14:54:41 -0000

On Wed 07/Aug/2019 17:16:29 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
>> If the definition of ptype smtp were "a parameter of the SMTP session used
>> to relay the message" it would be perfect.  I'd propose that policy.iprev
>> be deprecated and smtp.remote-ip used instead>>
> 
> Given that RFC8601 was published just last month, it'll probably be a while
> before this happens.


Wouldn't an accepted erratum be enough to change the wording in the IANA page?


About the new ptype, a reviewer suggested to also use it to report whether the
query supported DNSSEC.  No DNSWL that I know supports it.  However, I know
some DKIM filters report that feature either as a comment or as a reason in the
dkim= methodspec.  Using the new ptype might make that clearer.  Consider:

    Authentication-Results: example.com;
      dkim=pass dns.sec=yes header.i=@example.org header.b=j5aQ3SJv

What you think?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl-11#section-2


Best
Ale
--