Re: [dmarc-ietf] easier DKIM, DMARC2 & SPF Dependency Removal

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

> If the DMARC spec makes that clear, I think we win.  And recipients
> can still do what they want: if DMARCbis goes out with "use DKIM only"
> and a recipient wants to use SPF anyway, they can do that... just as a
> recipient that decides to use best-guess-SPF in the absence of actual
> SPF records is free to make that choice.

When said that way, I believe that requires a version bump v2 which would inherently means “use DKIM only,"

So supporters all do a version check:


   bUseDKIMOnly =  (DMARC[“v=“] == “DMARC2”)?1:0


And the new supporter will use the flag bUseDKIMOnly throughout its current DMARC1 evaluation accordingly.  

Or via “Add-on” tag extension:

   bUseDKIMOnly =  (DMARC[“auth="] == “dkim”)?1:0

Six in one, Half Dozen of the other?

The problem is that there are implementations that do check for v=DMARC1 and will not required DMARC2 as a valid record when in fact a DMARC2 record exist whose only purpose in life was to signify a relaxed DMARC1 evaluation regarding SPF.

I like the tag extension instead.  Make coding life easier, I think.   But if  v=DMARC2 is the way Levine wishes to go, I’m ok.  I see issues with just changing the inherent behavior without any protocol negotiating signals.

—
HLS