Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Fri, 19 July 2019 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 66AC1120404 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
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 VzorFjbFfPq1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D15A1206B1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id e20so28910029iob.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NCFKLXs8iZ8oA3tL4jmO9MD4BIn0LW3s9ZcuqB/eAuI=; b=EQsAJyRdjqIwg1daSr8hMbX4QqVb1cPR16NTLbi8dojNCHqvhhSQ8k9kRcz3MVQuTO clZhG1dMyAvJZqo7g8+Mn4L+WotWOVE+rre+l/+XmdzWpkTaYU24pWhSdxE3elge/TSh WwB4jGxdDh4DgopcgysgWpqkRF7N4Xhw2+kok=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NCFKLXs8iZ8oA3tL4jmO9MD4BIn0LW3s9ZcuqB/eAuI=; b=EmxByxsls+RBSkontpLNi6a4bD5x6oOdxcqx8WdeBq0eGnYYEhkwuihx/ZKX6tVL3U jBt6ko3rqHpSJr6+o+ISmuUi6kKLw+Ytiok7LpMDRa29CLtp68IrC0x21Zfjf/khAL7l 1w8xFANl57fl6zl0R+oY54jNygxMB1UnoLcsLb1wuXu5it5QKkYI2PE9q9up98cl8RUT jGu+NDUxMAh0ImhE72jzjb0tyv+zoLN4f24UhTfnLXM2rFvMe2JIsHcHWTduSD2P5CXt KVgQW3i2qxsT3oZa/7pAGNPkS7dHDkR+LylL4MMbMEXLIDPy4XPADq6oWxetNcdjnh+W w6yA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVxhojiWZ9Ojb43TtTPOkZZz8kYJp77tn5taGzVfrRDJs4xhj64 n9V/ZFWLUfpIIHBnRlvqc5cZDX8O5SZ93JwbuM+E7YEv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzum3USJzWC8TbtEKDVQTFJQ/N0PUc/rCJlTieVV8m7i+BVfrYeouGgB4ezxo0bNoXWjBdbo6azuT13HEM29RQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:fb10:: with SMTP id h16mr40353552iog.195.1563550432648; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <4249121.lBB2AW0kmB@l5580> <CABuGu1qGJq2fes9B1vwb1v=JMi3HcydvzDvoi0+ZrEwC4rYk1A@mail.gmail.com> <3280991.vD5HP6B0ME@l5580> <CABuGu1rPUXTeeFL0YLEdZ80DV3tL6QVirrmf05eSE12=mZaE3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1rPUXTeeFL0YLEdZ80DV3tL6QVirrmf05eSE12=mZaE3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:33:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABuGu1q=ibMcXzp_d17XAHUKQQpUvm_h_mKzVZY9HJjDS2Di1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020759e058e0a74a9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yIHkijK9EDUsiwDPOSCf1KsxynE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nonexistent Domain Policy was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
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, 19 Jul 2019 15:33:56 -0000

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:30 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com>; wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If we want to take another run at this and put it in more standard DNS
>> terminology, then maybe:
>>
>> .... a domain for which there is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A,
>> AAAA,
>> and MX records.
>>
>> I think that cures John's concern with my last proposal and addresses
>> yours as
>> well (the response to a CNAME/DNAME is not NODATA/NXDOMAIN, so they are
>> correctly followed).
>>
>
> Yes - I think that will fix my concerns (and John's too).
>

Thinking about this from a reporting POV, where would a receiver categorize
messages which ended up with SERVFAIL during the process of DMARC (regular
or PSD)? Would "sp" handling or "np" handling be invoked for SERVFAIL (such
as a broken DNSSEC implementation)?

--Kurt