Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-05.txt

From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:07:30 +0200

On 18-08-15 04:09, [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>   This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance Working Group of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows
>          Authors         : Franck Martin
>                            Eliot Lear
>                            Tim Draegen
>                            Elizabeth Zwicky
>                            Kurt Andersen
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-05.txt
> 	Pages           : 22
> 	Date            : 2015-08-17
>
> Abstract:
>     DMARC introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level policies and
>     preferences for email message validation, disposition, and reporting.
>     The DMARC mechanism can encounter interoperability issues when
>     messages do not flow directly from the author's administrative domain
>     to the final recipients.  Collectively these email flows are referred
>     to as indirect email flows.  This document describes interoperability
>     issues between DMARC and indirect email flows.  Possible methods for
>     addressing interoperability issues are presented.

I've reviewed version -05 and have only one comment (about text which is 
not new in this version). I think par. 3.2.5 - Boundary Filters should 
be removed from this document. After all, SPF, DKIM and DMARC have 
always been positioned as 'edge' technologies, where (primarily) the 
edge MTA's of both author administrative domain and final recipients 
administrative domain provide authententication, validation and 
disposition. So although all of par. 3.2.5 is true, IMHO it does not 
belong in a document with title 'Interoperability Issues Between DMARC 
and _Indirect_ Email Flows'. As an alternative we could change the scope 
of the entire document, by leaving par. 3.2.5 where it is now, changing 
the title of the document to 'Interoperability Issues when using DMARC' 
and re-think the use of the word 'indirect' throughout the document 
(some 12 places in the text).

It may be better to move section 3.2.5 to some future to be written BCP 
about the use of DMARC (and SPF and DKIM) in general.

/rolf