Where in the document are you proposing this text be added? Scott K
On August 28, 2022 9:04:18 PM UTC, Douglas Foster <dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: >I have stewed on the issues more while mowing the lawn. The language >below will address my concerns without changing the PSD=value token. > > > >Certainty > >Certainty can be achieved by adding constraints to the “psd=n” token: > >“Some organizations have subtrees within their DNS structure that represent >client sub-organizations, which are unaffiliated for purposes of relaxed >authentication. Before putting a PSD=N tag on an organizational domain >policy, the domain owner MUST ensure that all sub-organization boundaries >are properly identifiable. Identification can be accomplished by placing >a PSD=Y tag on the domain which is the parent of the sub-organizations, by >placing a PSD=Y tag on the organizational domain of every client >sub-organization, or both.” > > > >PSD=Y+N vs. PSD=Y only > >More than 90% of all PSL entries are both PSD=N (organization top) and >PSD=Y (registration point). I am looking to ensure that both types of >registrars have a way to publish DMARC policies that do not depend on the >configuration of parent domains. I think this will suffice: > >“Most registrar domains are self-contained, meaning that the parent domain >is a PSD and child domains are PSDs or unaffiliated organizations or PSDs. >When this is the case, the domain owner should publish PSD=Y as well as >askim=s and aspf=s. This ensures that the Tree Walk will terminate and >use the current domain policy as the default policy.” > >When a registrar and its parent are in the same organization, and the >organization sends mail, DMARC policies using relaxed alignment may be >desired. When “psd=y” is encountered on the initial exact-match domain, >and relaxed alignment is specified, the “psd=y” term is ignored and the >Tree Walk is used to find the parent record which is the organizational >domain.” > > > >DF > >On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 4:10 PM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for that, Doug. >> >> The part that’s missing is in relation to this: “keeping in mind that >> we’ve already established that the current PSD= tag is needed in only a >> very small number of domains”. >> >> If things were truly open-ended, there might be more agreement with you. >> But the fact that, using the PSL as a guide, we can easily count the number >> of domains that will have to add a PSD tag, it’s hard to see an actual >> (rather than theoretical) benefit from this change. Your proposal is also >> subject to errors when domains that need to use it fail to. But the bottom >> line is that in either case, *very* few domains are affected. >> >> If the text in the document now is unclear and likely to cause errors of >> confusion, we should address that, clearly. But I have to agree with >> Scott, John, and Mike in that I don’t see a real-world benefit either. >> >> Barry >> >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 3:03 PM Douglas Foster < >> dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The PSL has two problems: >>> - It removes control of relaxed authentication boundaries from the domain >>> owners. >>> - It is subject to errors which can cause both false PASS and false FAIL >>> - The possibility of errors means that evaluators cannot be certain >>> whether PASS and FAIL can be trusted. This is irrespective of the >>> decision whether a PASS should or FAIL result should be actionable. >>> >>> The PSD=token has similar problems: >>> - It depends primarily on registrars to define organizational boundaries >>> - It is subject to false PASS errors when registrar boundaries are not >>> tagged. >>> - It has ambiguity PSD=Y ONLY and PSD=Y+N domains, and I see that >>> ambiguity as likely to cause errors in policy tagging, software, or both. >>> - The possibility of errors means that evaluators cannot be certain >>> whether PASS and FAIL can be trusted. This is irrespective of the >>> decision whether a PASS should or FAIL result should be actionable. >>> >>> The Boundary=Token proposal is a reworking of the role=(tokens) proposal >>> that Ale introduced a long time ago. It does not change the logic to be >>> used when tokens are missing, so it is not more or less incompatible than >>> the current document. But it does provide domain owners with the ability >>> to fully document their configuration, which gives them the control which >>> is fundamental to the general DMARC concept. When the policy roles are >>> explicit, the evaluator has confidence that the result is error-free, >>> because the domain owner has explicitly asserted the information needed to >>> make that conclusion. >>> >>> As a fundamental design issue, I have a problem with using a two-state >>> semaphore to represent a four-state reality. >>> >>> This document provides heuristics for working around missing data. The >>> heuristic is plausible, and the proponents of PSD=token consider this a >>> final state. I consider it a transitional state. I believe our final >>> state should be one where organizational boundaries are based on explicit >>> domain owner information, not on guesswork. I don't see how a standards >>> track document would not define error-free results as the intended final >>> state. >>> >>> Allowing domain owners to voluntarily add token to their DMARC policy, in >>> exchange for gaining full control of relaxed alignment, seems both >>> acceptable ask and appropriate. >>> >>> Doug Foster >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 6:22 PM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Seth is right here: Doug, your message doesn't comply with what I've >>>> asked people to do, in two ways: it's asking for a change to something >>>> we already have consensus on and it's not proposing specific text >>>> changes. >>>> >>>> That said, there are two mitigating factors. For the latter, the >>>> request is specific enough that I think there's enough detail to >>>> discuss it. >>>> >>>> For the former, the PSD= feature is new enough, and our participation >>>> level has gotten low enough that it's difficult to say how strong the >>>> consensus is on that point, and I think it's reasonable to have >>>> another look. I've discussed this with Seth since his message below, >>>> and I'm allowing this issue to be opened for discussion, BUT... >>>> >>>> ...BUT let's keep the discussion focused and productive: I will cut it >>>> off at some point, so it's important that everyone in the discussion >>>> make their points clear and concise. >>>> >>>> John has replied that this is incompatible. Yes, but PSD= is also, at >>>> some level, incompatible... though far less so. So here's one thing >>>> I'd like to see discussed: >>>> >>>> - Doug, please clearly and concisely explain what benefit this has >>>> over the current PSD= tag that makes the incompatibility with existing >>>> implementations worth it. >>>> >>>> - If you disagree with Doug's proposal, please clearly and concisely >>>> explain why the benefit he is proposing is not useful enough to >>>> introduce the incompatibility. >>>> >>>> Barry >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 3:01 PM Seth Blank <s...@sethblank.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Doug, Barry's email sent as Chair was clear and specific: >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:33 AM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> We have come to a point in our discussions of >>>> >> draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis that the basic content and features of DMARC >>>> >> are stable and have rough consensus. Coupling that with the >>>> >> expectation, as in the working group's charter, that changes to the >>>> >> protocol that break interoperability with installed base need detailed >>>> >> justification, I think we need to be clear on how to go forward as we >>>> >> finish up. >>>> >> >>>> >> At this point, again, we consider the content and features to be >>>> >> stable, and changes to that are no longer in scope. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > What you raise as alternative token design goes counter to this clean >>>> line. >>>> > >>>> > Further, we're at the point of the bis project, as Barry also points >>>> out, where we expect comments to be accompanied by text suggestions, >>>> preferably in an OLD/NEW format. >>>> > >>>> > Doug, if you believe there is an issue here within scope of the text I >>>> quoted from Barry, please cite the section and text in the document and >>>> propose updated language. >>>> > >>>> > Otherwise, the time for topics like these has come and gone. >>>> > >>>> > Seth, as Chair >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:08 PM Douglas Foster < >>>> dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Alternative token design. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Boundary=A (Above only) >>>> >> >>>> >> Literal: The domain owner asserts that an >>>> organizational/administrative boundary exists between the current domain >>>> and its parent, meaning the domain and its parents are not aligned for >>>> relaxed authentication. No boundary exists immediately below this domain, >>>> so its child domains are aligned with it for relaxed authentication. >>>> >> Role: An Organizational Domain >>>> >> PSL Equivalent representation: The domain does not exist in the PSL, >>>> or is listed with negation. The parent domain is listed in the PSL, and >>>> without negation. >>>> >> Tree walk significance: The tree walk always stops on Boundary=A, as >>>> this domain is the organizational domain and provides the default policy. >>>> >> PSD=token equivalent: “psd=n” >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Boundary=N (None, Neither) >>>> >> >>>> >> Literal: That domain owner asserts that the domain does not have any >>>> adjacent organizational/administrative boundaries. >>>> >> Role: An organizational subdomain. >>>> >> PSL Equivalent representation: : The domain does not exist in the >>>> PSL. The parent domain is also not listed, or listed with negation. >>>> >> Tree walk significance: The domain owner has indicated awareness of >>>> DMARCbis. The tree walk will end on domain with a DMARC policy and a >>>> “Boundary=A” term. If an explicitly tagged organizational domain policy is >>>> not found, the result is PERMERROR and the evaluator is recommended to fall >>>> back to strict alignment. >>>> >> PSD=token equivalent: None >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Boundary=2 (Both above and below) >>>> >> >>>> >> Literal: The domain owner asserts that an >>>> organizational/administrative boundary exists both immediately above and >>>> immediately below this domain. Consequently, an exact match is required for >>>> alignment. >>>> >> Role: All Public Suffix Domains and many Private Registry domains. >>>> >> PSL Equivalent: Both the current domain and its parent are listed in >>>> the PSL, both without negation. >>>> >> Tree walk significance: The tree walks stops. If this is the >>>> exact-match domain, the organizational domain and default policy are from >>>> this record. If this domain is encountered subsequently during the tree >>>> walk, the walk stops, the current domain policy is the default policy but >>>> the immediately lower child domain is the organizational domain for relaxed >>>> alignment. >>>> >> PSD=token equivalent: Nothing provides a complete equivalence, but >>>> PSL=Y is used as an approximation. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Boundary=B (Below only) >>>> >> >>>> >> Literal: The domain owner asserts that an >>>> organizational/administrative boundary exist between this domain and its >>>> child domains, so its child domains are not aligned for relaxed >>>> authentication. No organizational/administrative boundary exists above this >>>> domain, so this domain can participate in relaxed alignment with its >>>> immediate parent. >>>> >> Role: A private registry whose parent domain is in the same >>>> organization. >>>> >> PSL Equivalent: The current domain is listed in the “Private >>>> Registry” section of the PSL, without negation. The parent domain is not >>>> listed at all. >>>> >> Tree walk significance: If encountered on the exact-match domain, the >>>> domain is treated the same as “Boundary=N”, and the tree walk proceeds >>>> upward. If encountered subsequently during the tree walk, the domain is >>>> treated the same as “Boundary=2”: the Tree Walk stops, the current domain >>>> policy becomes the default policy but the immediately lower child domain is >>>> the organizational domain for relaxed alignment. >>>> >> PSD=token equivalent: : Nothing provides a complete equivalence, but >>>> PSL=Y is used as an approximation. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> DMARC policy with no Boundary=token term >>>> >> >>>> >> Literal: The domain owner has not added new information in support of >>>> DMARCbis to his policy. The presence or absence of >>>> organizational/administrative boundaries must be inferred. >>>> >> Role: Not stated and therefore not known with certainty. >>>> >> PSL Equivalent: None. The PSL lookup always returns a result. >>>> >> Tree Walk significance: Information about this policy is stored, the >>>> Tree Walk continues upward, and an inference is made when the Tree Walk is >>>> complete. >>>> >> PSD=token equivalent: “psd=u” >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Domain with no DMARC policy >>>> >> >>>> >> Literal: The domain owner has not attached a DMARC policy to the >>>> current domain. >>>> >> Role: Not stated and therefore not known with certainty. >>>> >> PSL Equivalent: None. The PSL lookup always returns a result. >>>> >> Tree Walk significance: Information about this policy is stored, the >>>> Tree Walk continues upward, and an inference is made when the Tree Walk is >>>> complete. >>>> >> PSD=token equivalent: Not applicable. Since no policy is present, no >>>> tokens are present in that policy. >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
