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

Alessandro Vesely <> Fri, 13 December 2019 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B840D120232 for <>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:31:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XD35sAj9pGoQ for <>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5BE1201EF for <>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:31:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC03D.000000005DF35A65.00001DC8; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:31:17 +0100
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
References: <> <20191111155410.12A31E9E35A@ary.qy> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do is need a new ptype? Was Re: New authentication method, DNSWL
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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:

  spf=pass dns.sec=y;
  dkim=pass 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?