Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 16:57:54 -0500

In mid-November, I shared some proposed text for new Abstract and
Introduction sections -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wNE-cvIWQ3PXrM-42SozSocnnxs/

Dave Crocker submitted some suggestions on-list, and I noodled a bit with
the text myself, and submit the following for your collective consideration:

Abstract

   This document describes the Domain-based Message Authentication,

   Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) protocol.

   DMARC permits the owner of an author's domain name to enable

   validation of the domain's use, to indicate the implication of failed

   validation, and to request reports about use of the domain name.

   Mail receiving organizations can use this information when evaluating

   disposition choices for incoming mail.

   This document obsoletes RFC 7489.

[...]

1.  Introduction

   RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH BEFORE PUBLISHING:

   The source for this draft is maintained in GitHub at:

   https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis

   (https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis)

   The Sender Policy Framework ([RFC7208]) and DomainKeys Identified

   Mail ([RFC6376]) protocols provide domain-level authentication which

   is not directly associated with the RFC5322.From domain, and DMARC

   builds on those protocols.  Using DMARC, Domain Owners that originate

   email can publish a DNS TXT record with their email authentication

   policies, preferred handling for mail that fails authentication

   checks, and request reports about use of the domain name.

   As with SPF and DKIM, DMARC authentication checks result in verdicts

   of "pass" or "fail".  A DMARC pass verdict requires not only that SPF

   or DKIM pass for the message in question, but also that the domain

   validated by the SPF or DKIM check is aligned with the domain in the

   RFC5322.From header.  In the DMARC protocol, two domains are said to

   be "in alignment" if they have the same Organizational Domain

   (a.k.a., relaxed alignment) or they are identical (a.k.a., strict

   alignment).

   A DMARC pass result indicates only that the RFC5322.From domain has

   been authenticated in that message; there is no explicit or implied

   value assertion attributed to a message that receives such a verdict.

   A mail-receiving organization that performs a DMARC validation check

   on inbound mail can choose to use the result and the published

   assessment by the originating domain for message disposition to

   inform its mail handling decision for that message.  For a mail-

   receiving organization supporting DMARC, a message that passes

   validation is part of a message stream that is reliably associated

   with the domain owner. Therefore reputation assessment of that

   stream by the mail-receiving organization does not need to be

   encumbered by accounting for unauthorized use of the domain.  A

   message that fails this validation cannot reliably be associated with

   the aligned domain and its reputation.

   DMARC also describes a reporting framework in which mail-receiving

   domains can generate regular reports containing data about messages

   seen that claim to be from domains that publish DMARC policies, and

   send those reports to one or more addresses as requested by the

   Domain Owner's DMARC policy record.

   Experience with DMARC has revealed some issues of interoperability

   with email in general that require due consideration before

   deployment, particularly with configurations that can cause mail to

   be rejected.  These are discussed in Section 9.

Thank you for your time.

-- 

*Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager
*e:* [email-masked]
*p:* 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.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Dec 2020 14:24:59 -0500

In article <CAHej_8kkuQR3_LiV_O5Z-EPvVeZrdTPvCiK7rOmWKxQKsp=[email-masked]> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-

I have a few minor editorial tweaks to suggest but they can wait.  I hink
we should use this text.

 -- snippo --