IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Final, I hope, tweaks to the tree walk

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 30 June 2022 07:12 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 EF174C15D869 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=tana.it header.b=Y46e5Y9I; dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it header.b=DLMOmxlR
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LAyjYy3_blnb for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6BA9C15CF41 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=epsilon; t=1656573163; bh=83bqbeCbvnQOSq0GSKvGsX938xF2dp7equ1COJmQGCU=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Y46e5Y9IwVKmYBRaCBhyXKilhIZMuyGI2MXEQ2tf/w+TOwpYlyJKNyKlo585A+SAV IH8DgPQ+d7Fbb6rbqpoBw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1656573163; bh=83bqbeCbvnQOSq0GSKvGsX938xF2dp7equ1COJmQGCU=; h=Date:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=DLMOmxlRlp7sB1KfkbHh8mOqAPeIleBJe3L5qWguSthRSoi8/F+fwrXib+Is4P43t j3IlvWKKVAMlZtFQiwuWoGsx9MkvQ2JwGdGgWAqZLQ5JtiaWbH/QFTcxhyeE0EIF0s TdPf4jPXjglIoTi//kd3OAMxLUfyZHo4ytzUwCuXcBs6KKOVOy2MQ/US40gaD
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC083.0000000062BD4CEB.00003253; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:12:43 +0200
Message-ID: <6e038fca-ba28-376a-e6ff-8021e209acbc@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:12:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20220626154211.6893F4452D0F@ary.qy> <2bc4e123-8711-7538-599e-727d8ea9caff@tana.it> <bedf51e9-6fe6-d52b-1083-bac67d8906ea@taugh.com> <be56e041-d588-c8e7-bd37-bf2858773b75@tana.it> <ED978D2A-ADD1-4FFA-B101-239D333019CB@kitterman.com> <7b584f9f-1e03-93f7-bb8a-0a899dfdfe8c@tana.it> <05C14229-67E4-475E-AD2E-0421E122BEA5@kitterman.com> <3483c07f-830e-0c81-0a34-5653c654e5ca@tana.it> <92560B76-677A-46BC-ACB2-02C7F6D800E9@kitterman.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <92560B76-677A-46BC-ACB2-02C7F6D800E9@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/vp25pKcI9-de7cGGsYWIyJ58kW0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Final, I hope, tweaks to the tree walk
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:12:56 -0000

On Wed 29/Jun/2022 19:17:05 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>Yes, the example is contrived, but since there are no rules limiting delegation to third parties, we cannot be sure how subdomains are going to evolve.
> 
> My view is that we are in a case that is sufficiently obscure that the answer to complaints should be "then don't do that".  We should move on to other critical topics like what to call the tag.


It is difficult to find the right names for the tags when we look at them and 
still don't know whether we see rabbits or ducks.

Perhaps there should be an appendix making examples of how to structure 
cascades of private PSDs, also showing how the algorithm behaves in such corner 
cases?


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email