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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 13 December 2019 09:31 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 B840D120232 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:31:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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] 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 XD35sAj9pGoQ for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5BE1201EF for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:31:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1576229477; bh=uI1ykFbAKPMN59rJk2ov4Hm1bltUA7+1P44Cjd1I15M=; l=1158; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BH+nyd77LDMXS5n2uJyBUpShunapxGFLWG9fbFX2eUJhb4HIK4TvFhC6EioHxv4O7 hG7d+K8oOGjrd3VsD4SxldXbdxwHflw5rHuK8uvhBwZgp2iPUU1a52fSJfah8FCehE zURzr/lCvPn7bKoryJnCILHNHR1+rilsB7OwPTH1jSUgNGFy1X3VmdJOjOr5X
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, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.000000005DF35A65.00001DC8; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:31:17 +0100
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <CAL0qLwbo1AtJ6LG1UuSSoBC-GwjdQsc5CA2h6q5VqMxH=dxK5w@mail.gmail.com> <20191111155410.12A31E9E35A@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwa=zs29zKHZmhzB7RSQyT7wRUCdqh1LSLTksX8d6h5naQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <d1251a74-65e1-d6db-84d5-c98a6c5344d6@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:31:17 +0100
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: <CAL0qLwa=zs29zKHZmhzB7RSQyT7wRUCdqh1LSLTksX8d6h5naQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/tzpXQyX3Ap8XjAq1MCixwMU0Zvg>
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: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:31:22 -0000

On Tue 03/Dec/2019 21:22:28 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Assuming the ptype we're talking about is "dns" which is defined in the same
> document, the definition is terse and there's not much guidance for the
> designated expert about what things should be allowed with respect to future
> registrations.  I think Scott basically said the same thing.  I'd like to see
> those points addressed before green lighting it. 


The doc just says "The property being reported belongs to the Domain Name
System".  I think that definition broadly includes any tag found in a domain's
TXT record.  For example, we could agree that within a resinfo of a given
method, any dns ptype refers to tags in the relevant record or retrieval
thereof, unless otherwise specified.  So one could have, say:

Authentication-Results: example.com;
  spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=example.net dns.sec=y;
  dkim=pass header.i=@example.org header.b=jIvx30NG dns.s=tlsrpt

The point is where would such kind of convention be made explicit.  I don't see
what additional text can be added to the dnswl I-D in order to make that issue
clearer.  Any proposal?


Best
Ale
--