Re: [dmarc-ietf] Lookup Limitations For Public Suffix Domains

Zeke Hendrickson <ezekielh@umich.edu> Fri, 30 November 2018 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ezekielh@umich.edu>
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 9E47013104E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:40:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 j0xA3iFjVbYZ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maleficent.mr.itd.umich.edu (smtp.mail.umich.edu [141.211.125.12]) (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 1CEB813104D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:40:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=relay-2016-05-12; t=1543614036; bh=OaidzqDjF/bY6vXXOZn3BhWdo98SFc+LnRh4heGptSo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=KVQGp3Sa8pmv2gHnsEw8zvZhAUrXPNenHn4S2afSOVnFItq3rz+junW9IjB0AWfdo /1FnVYbChmiNR9gG+0mDTlhOnR0Kkjfo1JmHIEX5W2tDkMLihCWubky9krIIftp8iW ZOB1BO0K4EGzICgQrLeXth7Hw0dhqwKPJHxufD7y4Z/c584JUNfNjQj49whmRsUW2D 6UD/zu7PxYmMjlHqdsRvqQBbPgyDkZy3MncN0R5R09IXMSDndBBeW2JrRj7QHA1vum J3rngVHD5xy4FasFwYVnwVTDFaclUOqws7h/WODuVNl4n9DIvxvXGPDEd4dpEv9Whj yVbHHr4ky1aew==
Authentication-Results: maleficent.mr.itd.umich.edu; iprev=pass policy.iprev=45.79.218.81 (vereveel.marwnad.com); auth=pass smtp.auth=ezekielh
Received: FROM marwnad.com (vereveel.marwnad.com [45.79.218.81]) By maleficent.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 5C01AE54.5CA4C.25214; Authuser ezekielh; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:40:36 -0500
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:40:33 +0000
From: Zeke Hendrickson <ezekielh@umich.edu>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181130214033.GA20002@marwnad.com>
References: <3881693.rR9BVk4Dlq@kitterma-e6430>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3881693.rR9BVk4Dlq@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/olsSh3rs8roxRzqOs64QSTzmVwU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Lookup Limitations For Public Suffix Domains
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:40:41 -0000

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:37:19AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> While we were discussing making draft-kitterman-dmarc-psd a working group 
> item, the main discussion point was about the use of an IANA registry to 
> identify participating public suffix domains.  I think it would be useful to 
> consider what problems we were trying to solve and see if there are 
> alternative approaches that address those requirements.
> 
> Goals:
> 
> 1.  Minimize additional verifier burden for adding PSD DMARC support.  
> Currently it requires consulting a locally stored, infrequently changing list 
> and one additional DNS lookup only for participating public suffixes when 
> there is no organizational domain DMARC record.
> 
> 2.  Externalize signaling about PSD participation.  As discussed in the 
> Privacy Considerations (section 4.1), we were concerned about the privacy 
> implications of feedback on organizational domain traffic for organizational 
> domains that don't participate in DMARC being inappropriately captured by 
> public suffix operators.  In order to avoid this, we identified criteria for 
> which public suffixes PSD DMARC would be appropriate for and require an 
> external review to ensure those criteria are met.  No solution that's in DNS 
> will address this part of the problem.

I feel that restricting the additional PSD check to nonexistent
organizational domains is the best approach, as it preserves the
opt-in nature of DMARC, limits privacy concerns, remains very
straightforward to implement as a verifier, and does not rely on an
additional list.

draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-00 addresses a slightly broader problem space,
but I feel that adding the ability to get feedback on abuse of
nonexistent domains is the most needed aspect; treating branded PSDs
as organizational domains would be better addressed by improving the
way organizational boundaries are determined.

-- 
Zeke Hendrickson (ezekielh@umich.edu)
University of Michigan | Information and Technology Services
Infrastructure | Application Operations | Collaboration Services