forked from ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
tld_dmarc_r0.txt
392 lines (241 loc) · 13.8 KB
/
tld_dmarc_r0.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
Network Working Group S. Kitterman
Internet-Draft Kitterman Technical Services
Updates: 7489 (if approved) August 31, 2018
Intended status: Informational
Expires: March 4, 2019
DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance)
Extension For TLDs (Top Level Domains)
draft-kitterman-dmarc-tld-00
Abstract
DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and
Conformance) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating
organization can express domain-level policies and preferences for
message validation, disposition, and reporting, that a mail-receiving
organization can use to improve mail handling. DMARC itself does not
apply to TLDs (Top Level Domains). For the subset of TLDs that
require DMARC usage, it is appropriate to provide TLD level DMARC
capability. This memo describes an extension to DMARC to enable a
subset of DMARC functionality for such TLDs.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Kitterman Expires March 4, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TLD DMARC August 2018
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Top Level Domain (TLD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. TLD Operator (TLDO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. TLDO Controlled Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. Non-existent Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. TLD DMARC Updates to DMARC Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Section 6.1 DMARC Policy Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Section 6.3. General Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Section 6.5. Domain Owner Actions . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. Section 6.6.3. Policy Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.6. 7.3. Failure Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Non-existent Domain Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Section 6.3. General Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. DMARC Tag Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. DMARC Top Level Domain (TLD) Registry . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
DMARC [RFC7489] provides email sending organizational policy
information to email receivers. Due to the design of DMARC [RFC7489]
and the nature of the Internet email architecture [RFC5598], there
are interoperability issues associated with DMARC [RFC7489]
deployment. These are discused in Interoperability Issues between
DMARC and Indirect Email Flows [RFC7960]. These issues are not
applicable to TLDs, since they do not send mail.
DMARC [RFC7489], by design, does not support requirements of TLD
operators. For TLDs that require use of DMARC [RFC7489], a subset of
Kitterman Expires March 4, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TLD DMARC August 2018
DMARC reporting and enforcement capability is needed for TLD
operators to effectively manage and monitor implementation of TLD
requirements.
Additionally, the ability to extend DMARC [RFC7489] policy to operate
against non-existent domains would enhance its utility for TLD
Operators as well as Domain Owners. Originally, DMARC [RFC7489]
included this functionality, but it was removed after significant
operational issues were discovered. This memo adds a new DMARC
[RFC7489] record tag to provide this capability on an optional, opt-
in basis.
2. Terminology and Definitions
This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.
2.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Top Level Domain (TLD)
The global Internet Domain Name System (DNS) is documented in
numerous Requests for Comment (RFC). It defines a tree of names
starting with root, ".", immediately below which are Top Level Domain
names such as ".com" and ".us".
2.3. TLD Operator (TLDO)
A TLD Operator manages operations within their TLD based on guidance
and rules from ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers).
2.4. TLDO Controlled Domain Names
TLDO Controlled Domain Names are names in the DNS that are managed by
TLDOs and not available for use as organizational domains (the term
organizational domains is defined in DMARC [RFC7489]). Depending on
TLD policy, these will have one (e.g. ".com") or more (e.g. ".co.uk")
or more name components.
Kitterman Expires March 4, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TLD DMARC August 2018
2.5. Non-existent Domains
For DMARC [RFC7489] purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain name
that publishes none of A, AAAA, or MX records. This is a broader
definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020].
3. TLD DMARC Updates to DMARC Requirements
This document updates DMARC [RFC7489] as follows:
3.1. General Updates
References to "Domain Owners" also apply to TLDOs.
3.2. Section 6.1 DMARC Policy Record
TLD DMARC records are published as a subdomain of the TLD. For the
TLD ".example", the TLDO would post DMARC preferences in a TXT record
at "_dmarc.example".
3.3. Section 6.3. General Record Format
The rf and ruf tags are not applicable to TLD DMARC and MUST be
ignored for TLD records.
3.4. Section 6.5. Domain Owner Actions
In addition to the DMARC [RFC7489] domain owner actions, TLDOs will
need to update the "DMARC TLD Registry". See IANA Considerations
below.
3.5. Section 6.6.3. Policy Discovery
A new step between step 3 and 4 is added:
3A. If the set is now empty and the TLD of the Organizational Domain
is listed in the DMARC TLD Registry, the Mail Receiver MUST query
the DNS for a DMARC TXT record at the DNS domain matching the TLD
in place of the RFC5322.From domain in the message (if different).
This record can contain policy to be asserted for subdomains of
the TLD. A possibly empty set of records is returned.
3.6. 7.3. Failure Reports
This section is not applicable to records identified via policy
discovery step 3A.
Kitterman Expires March 4, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TLD DMARC August 2018
4. Non-existent Domain Requirements
4.1. Section 6.3. General Record Format
A new "np" tag is added:
np: Requested Mail Receiver policy for all non-existent domains
(plain-text; OPTIONAL). Indicates the policy to be enacted by the
Receiver at the request of the Domain Owner. It applies only to
subdomains of the domain queried and not to the domain itself.
Its syntax is identical to that of the "p" tag defined above. If
absent, DMARC policy MUST NOT be applied for non-existent domains.
5. Privacy Considerations
This document does not change significantly change the Privacy
Considerations of [RFC7489]. Privacy considerations related to
Failure Reports do not apply to TLD DMARC.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not change the Security Considerations of
[RFC7489].
7. IANA Considerations
This section describes actions requested to be completed by IANA.
7.1. DMARC Tag Registry Update
IANA is requested to add the following item to the registry:
+--------+-----------+---------+------------------------------------+
| Tag | Reference | Status | Description |
| Name | | | |
+--------+-----------+---------+------------------------------------+
| np | this | current | Requested handling policy for non- |
| | document | | existent domains |
+--------+-----------+---------+------------------------------------+
7.2. DMARC Top Level Domain (TLD) Registry
IANA is requested to create a new DMARC Top Level Domain (TLD)
Registry within the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting,
and Conformance (DMARC) Parameters Registry.
Names of TLDs participating in TLD DMARC must be registered with IANA
in this new sub-registry. New entries are assigned only for TLDs
Kitterman Expires March 4, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TLD DMARC August 2018
that require use of DMARC. The requirement has to be documented in a
manner that satisfies the terms of Expert Review, per [RFC5226]. The
Designated Expert needs to confirm that provided documentation
adequately describes TLD policy to require domain owners to use
DMARC.
The initial set of entries in this registry is as follows:
+-------------+----------------+---------------+
| TLD | Reference | Status |
+-------------+----------------+---------------+
| .bank | this document | current |
+-------------+----------------+---------------+
| .insurance | this document | current |
+-------------+----------------+---------------+
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7489] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5598>.
Kitterman Expires March 4, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TLD DMARC August 2018
[RFC7960] Martin, F., Ed., Lear, E., Ed., Draegen. Ed., T., Zwicky,
E., Ed., and K. Andersen, Ed., "Interoperability Issues
between Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting,
and Conformance (DMARC) and Indirect Email Flows",
RFC 7960, DOI 10.17487/RFC7960, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7960>.
[RFC8020] Bortzmeyer, S. and S. Huque, "NXDOMAIN: There Really Is
Nothing Underneath", RFC 8020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8020,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8020>.
Acknowledgements
TBS
Author's Address
Scott Kitterman
Kitterman Technical Services
3611 Scheel Dr
Ellicott City, MD 21042
United States of America
Phone: +1 301 325-5475
Email: scott@kitterman.com
Kitterman Expires March 4, 2019 [Page 7]