On Monday, July 25, 2022 9:59:02 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Sun 24/Jul/2022 22:04:07 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On July 24, 2022 9:58:46 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat 23/Jul/2022 19:52:33 +0200 John Levine wrote: > >>> As I would hope everyone in this discussion would be aware, the "as if" > >>> rule applies to all IETF standards. You can do whatever you want so > >>> long as the result is the same as if you had done what the spec says. > >> > >> The "as if" rule also holds for the case that all domains are equal, the > >> case that no policy record is found, and the case that all alignments > >> are strict. Shortcuts have been part of the draft at least since April, > >> and their presence seems to be accepted by the WG. > >> > >> I don't understand why those shortcuts deserve being mentioned while the > >> parent-child does not. >> > > > I think you're proposal is somewhat different than the existing shortcuts. > > The existing items in the note are cases where the tree walk can be > > skipped entirely. Your suggested addition is about a shortcut within the > > tree walk algorithm. I think that makes it sufficiently different to > > merit independent consideration.
> They're all shortcuts. In the case I presented there is only a query to > _dmarc.signing.dept.example.com (NXDOMAIN). In the second of the three > ones there is a first tree walk that yields no record. That sounds similar > to me. I agree that there is some similarity, but I think that they are distinct. I think someone needs to apply judgement on how far to go. I'm comfortable with where the draft authors have decided enough is enough, but I understand opinions may differ. > >> In addition, presenting the shortcuts in the middle of the algorithm > >> specification can alter its meaning. See below.> > > I disagree. They're marked as part of a note, so are not part of the > > specification. This is a reasonably common thing to do in IETF RFCs. > The note is not fully indented. It disrupts the text enough to make it > necessary to add the paragraph that immediately follows it. The added > paragraph is way too generic than needed. > > In general, there is no reason to specify exceptions before rules. I'm happy to accept the draft authors judgement on this, either way, both regarding the location and the indenting. I do agree it might be better to make it more visually distinct, but I think we have lots of time for polishing the document and it's a detail that shouldn't block the question of if we're agreed on the tree walk as our approach. Is the "added paragraph" you're referring to this: > To discover the Organizational Domain for a domain, perform the DNS > Tree Walk described in Section 4.6 as needed for any of the domains > in question. If so, I disagree. I think that the section on org domain determination needs to point to 4.6 regardless of if the notes are where they are or elsewhere. The text is changed slightly for the next revision in Git, but either way I think it's needed. > >>> As I have repeatedly asked, if you think there are places where the > >>> tree walk results are wrong, show us some examples. Otherwise, please > >>> stop. > >> > >> Here you are: > >> > >> I hope you agree that .com is a domain. The spec says that in order to > >> discover the Organizational Domain for a domain, I can perform the DNS > >> Tree Walk as needed for any of the domains in question. That way, the > >> domain in question, .com, is the Organizational Domain of itself. That > >> is wrong because .com is a PSD. > >> > >> Oh, perhaps "in question" refers to the three cases mentioned in the > >> Section's intro? It doesn't say so, it says a tree walk "might start" > >> there, without excluding other possibilities. "In question" can > >> legitimately be understood to refer to any domain at hand. > >> > >> Furthermore, the parenthesized reinforcement "if present and > >> authenticated" in a domain in the first shortcut casts a shadow on the > >> requirement that all identifiers except From: must be authenticated —if > >> that requirement were clear, there'd be no need to reinforce it. This > >> corroborates the wrong interpretation. >> > > > First, if .com had a DMARC record and .com sent mail, it could be both a > > PSD for lower level domains and it's own organizational domain for > > itself, so your conclusion is incorrect. We have discussed this multiple > > times. I think we most recently used .gov.uk as a more realistic > > example. > No, I'm not hypothesizing that .com had a record and passed the requirements > stated (somewhat unclearly) right at the beginning of section 4.8. I'm > pointing out that the paragraph after the note relaxes those requirements. > Indeed, it says that the algorithm is valid for any domain. I fear that I'm understanding you less as a result of this email, not more. In an email earlier today you said: > Therefore, a sending (or signing) PSD operates as part of its org domain. Your original premise in this section of the email seems to be the opposite of that, so I'm certain I don't know what you mean. > > I think we have been through this more than once and we should not do it > > again. > Yes, we've been here before, but we didn't conclude: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/sxijuMsZuBlinO4x_SN5qhJ08nM/ OK. Here's what you proposed: > For each Tree Walk that retrieved valid DMARC records starting > from the RFC5322.From domain, the SPF-validated RFC5321.MailFrom > domain, or a DKIM-validated d= domain, select the > Organizational Domain by looping from the longest to the shortest: I don't like "looping" as this is not a programming specification. I don't really see the point of this since the opening paragraph of the section already lists those as the possible entry points for the determination. I would object to looping and don't really see this as an improvement, but if the document authors think it's clearer to restate it here, I can live with it. > > Second, your "Furthermore..." claim reads to me as because the text says > > the identifier must be present and authenticated, it will make readers > > likely to think that the opposite is true. I think you should take a > > step back and reconsider your suggestion as it doesn't seem at all > > logical to me. > Why? For example "Consider all American cars. Note, if limiting to Ford > and GM (which really are cars), then...". Doesn't the parenthesized part > instill the doubt that the whole set includes something which somehow is > not really a car? No. > >> I'd specify the algorithm first and discuss shortcuts after. > > > > If they are correct, it doesn't matter where the note is and if they are > > wrong, they should be fixed. > It is the paragraph after the note which is not correct. It adds nothing. > Its only purpose seems to be to re-introduce the framework, after the note. > However, in doing so it relaxes the requirements. No. I don't think it does and I don't understand how you could possibly interpret it that way (see my answer above where you complained about the same paragraph). > > I don't think they are wrong and we should move on. > > Perhaps you've been too much involved in authoring that text. Please > consider the hypothesis that you and John intuited something which does not > actually correspond to what you wrote. > > I'm usually not classified as subnormal, have been programming since the 80s > and running a mail server for 20 years. Yet, I got it wrong, and you had > to write several clarification messages before I could grasp the algorithm > you mean. I had misunderstood what the draft says. After I finally got > it, I identified the misleading paragraph which deceived me. I'm asking > that it be removed. Here's what's currently in Git between the shortcuts and the numbered steps (it's in Markdown, vice final RFC text, but I think it's clear enough): > To discover the Organizational Domain for a domain, perform the DNS Tree > Walk described in (#dns-tree-walk) as needed for any of the domains in > question. > > For each Tree Walk that retrieved valid DMARC records, select the > Organizational Domain from the domains for which valid DMARC records were > retrieved from the longest to the shortest: If we change this to: > To discover the Organizational Domain for these domains, perform the DNS > Tree Walk described in (#dns-tree-walk) as needed for the domains in > question. For each Tree Walk that retrieved valid DMARC records, select the > Organizational Domain from the domains for which valid DMARC records were > retrieved from the longest to the shortest: Does that resolve your concern? I changed "for a domain" to "for these domains" to address your concern about relaxing requirements. I think you're wrong and it makes absolutely no difference, but if you think it's better, believe it would do. I do think the two sentences would better be in one paragraph as they are not really separate ideas. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
