I was surprised to see that #111 and #112, about the definition of NP, survived to be included in this policy discussion.
I remain strongly opposed to an NP policy based on A/AAAA/MX. A brief recap: - A non-existent domain test should be based on a DNS query that returns NXDomain, not NODATA. - A non-existent domain test should be mutually exclusive with any existence test, but the A/AAAA/MX allows for a message to be simultaneously authenticated by a domain DKIM signature and repudiated by absence of an A/AAAA/MX record. - A non-existent domain test should allow for unpublished From addresses to become DNS-published without imputing behavior. This can be accomplished with a TXT record, but cannot be accomplished with an A, AAAA, or MX record. - A non-existence test based on NXDomain can be accomplished with one extra DNS query, while a test based on A/AAAA/MX requires multiple additional queries. - A non-existence test based on NXDomain can definitively state that the name does not exist in DNS. A test based on A/AAAA/MX says that the name might be used for email if found, and might not be used for email if not found., An ambiguous result is a useless result. But past attempts to get these problems addressed have been fruitless. I do not understand why. Doug Foster On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 3:33 PM Todd Herr <todd.herr= 40valimail....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Greetings. > > There are, by my count, eleven tickets that are primarily focused on or at > least touch on the issue of policy discovery. A specialized query for them > is at this URL - https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/report/15 > > The question of policy discovery has a few options as its answer: > > - Leave things as they are (meaning look up the policy for the > RFC5322.From domain and the organizational domain of that domain if > different) > - Add a third lookup for a public suffix domain > - Walk the DNS tree from the RFC5322.From domain all the way to an > agreed-upon level in the DNS hierarchy > - Something other than what's listed here > > The topic of policy discovery has been proposed for the agenda for the > upcoming DMARC session at IETF 112, and so this message should serve to > kick off a discussion of the topic now, so that we can have a most > productive discussion on the 9th. > > Thank you. > > -- > > *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards and Ecosystem > *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com > *m:* 703.220.4153 > > This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or > proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) > authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized > recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or > distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited > and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to > this email and then delete it from your system. > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
