draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-17.txt   draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-18.txt 
DMARC F. Martin, Ed. DMARC F. Martin, Ed.
Internet-Draft LinkedIn Internet-Draft LinkedIn
Intended status: Informational E. Lear, Ed. Intended status: Informational E. Lear, Ed.
Expires: December 23, 2016 Cisco Systems GmbH Expires: January 19, 2017 Cisco Systems GmbH
T. Draegen, Ed. T. Draegen, Ed.
dmarcian, inc. dmarcian, inc.
E. Zwicky, Ed. E. Zwicky, Ed.
Yahoo Yahoo
K. Andersen, Ed. K. Andersen, Ed.
LinkedIn LinkedIn
June 21, 2016 July 18, 2016
Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows
draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-17 draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-18
Abstract Abstract
DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and
Conformance) introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level Conformance) introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level
policies and preferences for email message validation, disposition, policies and preferences for email message validation, disposition,
and reporting. The use of restrictive policies through the DMARC and reporting. However, the DMARC mechanism enables potentially
framework can cause interoperability issues when messages do not flow disruptive interoperability issues when messages do not flow directly
directly from the author's administrative domain to the final from the author's administrative domain to the final recipients.
recipients. Collectively these email flows are referred to as Collectively these email flows are referred to as indirect email
indirect email flows. This document describes interoperability flows. This document describes these interoperability issues, and
issues between DMARC and indirect email flows. Possible methods for presents possible methods for addressing them.
addressing interoperability issues are presented.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
A.2. Notification message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A.2. Notification message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
DMARC [RFC7489] introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level DMARC [RFC7489] introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level
policies and preferences for message validation, disposition, and policies and preferences for message validation, disposition, and
reporting. The DMARC mechanism, especially when employed with reporting. The DMARC mechanism, especially when employed with
restrictive policies, encounters several different types of restrictive policies, encounters several different types of
interoperability issues due to third-party message sourcing, message interoperability issues due to third-party message sourcing, message
transformation, or rerouting. transformation, or rerouting. In particular, DMARC with restrictive
policies causes problems for many mailing lists.
At the time of the writing of this document, the DMARC base At the time of the writing of this document, the DMARC base
specification is published as Informational RFC 7489 [RFC7489] and specification is published as Informational RFC 7489 [RFC7489] and
has seen significant deployment within the email community. has seen significant deployment within the email community.
Cases in which email does not flow directly from the author's Cases in which email does not flow directly from the author's
administrative domain to the recipient's domain(s) are collectively administrative domain to the recipient's domain(s) are collectively
referred to in this document as indirect email flows. Due to referred to in this document as indirect email flows. Due to
existing and increasing adoption of DMARC, the impact of DMARC-based existing and increasing adoption of DMARC, the impact of DMARC-based
email rejection policies on indirect email flows can be significant email rejection policies on indirect email flows can be significant
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 12 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/