IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to Tree Walk?

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 19 June 2022 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 3386BC15BE13 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 09:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=DGGfye7o; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=GgboU0Hs
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 ZIEYb2UD2PDs for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 09:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2803AC15B249 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30283 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2022 16:08:58 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=7649.62af4a1a.k2206; bh=7V7P4HJ0zxof2phkbnck+oHucdeAgTepoQkLPvg9i0c=; b=DGGfye7oaGALwlEDKnI8JYLXhZdd+/ApBgEtm5xa+bJjCkm5S9YHFon5SSaGi93WRov4ajYrAy+1e7YVwHDDOFeIQXfJx86OFtpJc2/P/faAyV+ll60If/095ompRxmDJGFFOpRzGF8eYIs328Y3Wr9KK13vsAN+M+/9lPhUoOHNqvDkcDFy8UobGYIRNwaSz4Ga8EvVm8neaGFV7ryKqmUVQ3YVVRxTJTYnkOif4lgTFXj3L4dncOxEkTL4GWw2Z1Em5ls5KtpHL+I2uRtiLHdsk0MnzJ+/51S7eq0G7Khtv5GiIy7L4G1NgwRBP5cCkkBi95eVMdfVhGbx8i+qsQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=7649.62af4a1a.k2206; bh=7V7P4HJ0zxof2phkbnck+oHucdeAgTepoQkLPvg9i0c=; b=GgboU0Hsmx4ywWSmGe+6Z2ghK1CCwF2QGhvyMr3FrdWtdReisSiT3tsG/aIqOyqal2kV4U9ZIxrxKzOhKXjCXnlfcBGZqoy4AsoJhttj3A1dErL6RkhFtvbcsyJJw8H2Yx9zJE5tB9ZVUX4lHjzsiPt652yIoFS0XGApG4FF2B+riOIHGRQLi8eA74u/S8Sn4q9/esIzFZkC668swE00Pp3y9F/h2CmuhJEVjUMhZZIeQT0SlWexsM5oDbDwmT27RrLdQ9fUSWmfQ/1kEtgfFamA3h7RAv+V92xHY45dpmOKOkhpHmc6eIkEFpW/oVDIwADDqhRhSVCSg+iALEFCXg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 19 Jun 2022 16:08:58 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id EC58A43D32BF; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:08:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C57C43D32A1; Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:08:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:08:57 -0400
Message-ID: <8521df13-652d-c30f-3fac-75630c3fedbd@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZ_8MsD-t3-25yzYDJsd3vVKHocZb+nwhrqKNpO7KutLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwa0fGJRGXaueKERwM_bfSBjwB4dG8=-iTTWQ6trPohuxQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220618181008.3D0E243C75B5@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwZ_8MsD-t3-25yzYDJsd3vVKHocZb+nwhrqKNpO7KutLA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wOKNjhqF5QlN_Dm8rX0niI-Ze9A>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Are Evaluators motivated to switch to 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: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:09:13 -0000

>> That seems like a pessimal way to make things interoperate: use one of
>> an unknown set of algorithms ...

> Given that we're already working in an environment where it's unlikely that
> everyone's working from a common version of the PSL, I don't think this is
> such a scary idea.

But one of the points of the tree walk is that for the first time it gives 
us a well-defined algorithm that everyone can use to get the same answer.

I realize that the PSL works OK, mostly, we think, give or take its daily 
updates and no agreement about whether you use the whole thing or just the 
nominally more official first part.  I don't see why we would want to make 
things worse.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email