Experimental DMARC Extension For Public Suffix Domains
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dmarc WG)
Authors Scott Kitterman  , Tim Wicinski 
Last updated 2021-04-22 (latest revision 2021-04-12)
Replaces draft-kitterman-dmarc-psd
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Alexey Melnikov
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2021-03-22)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.
Responsible AD Murray Kucherawy
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
Network Working Group                                       S. Kitterman
Internet-Draft                                    fTLD Registry Services
Intended status: Experimental                           T. Wicinski, Ed.
Expires: October 14, 2021                                 April 12, 2021

         Experimental DMARC Extension For Public Suffix Domains
                        draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12

Abstract

   Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
   (DMARC) permits a domain-controlling organization to express domain-
   level policies and preferences for message validation, disposition,
   and reporting, which a mail-receiving organization can use to improve
   mail handling.

   DMARC distinguishes the portion of a name that is a Public Suffix
   Domain (PSD), below which organizational domain names are created.
   The basic DMARC capability allows organizational domains to specify
   policies that apply to their subdomains, but it does not give that
   capability to PSDs.  This document describes an extension to DMARC to
   fully enable DMARC functionality for PSDs.

   Some implementations of DMARC consider a PSD to be ineligible for
   DMARC enforcement.  This specification addresses that case.

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 October 14, 2021.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Public Suffix Domain (PSD)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Organizational Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Longest PSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Public Suffix Operator (PSO)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6.  PSO Controlled Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.7.  Non-existent Domains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  PSD DMARC Updates to DMARC Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  General Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format"  . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Changes in Section 6.5 "Domain Owner Actions" . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Changes in Section 6.6.1 "Extract Author Domain"  . . . .   7
     3.5.  Changes in Section 6.6.3 "Policy Discovery" . . . . . . .   8
     3.6.  Changes in Section 7 "DMARC Feedback" . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Feedback leakage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Subdomain Policy Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  PSD DMARC Privacy Concern Mitigation Experiment  . .  12
   Appendix B.  DMARC PSD Registry Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     B.1.  DMARC PSD DNS Query Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     B.2.  DMARC Public Suffix Domain (PSD) Registry . . . . . . . .  13

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

     B.3.  DMARC PSD PSL Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix C.  Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     C.1.  Authheaders Module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     C.2.  Zdkimfilter Module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   DMARC ([RFC7489]) provides a mechanism for publishing organizational
   policy information to email receivers.  DMARC allows policy to be
   specified for both individual domains and for organizational domains
   and their sub-domains within a single organization.

   To determine the organizational domain for a message under
   evaluation, and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC
   makes use of a public suffix list.  The process for doing this can be
   found in Section 3.2 of the DMARC specification.  Currently the
   public suffix list being used is the most common one that is
   maintained by the Mozilla Foundation and made public at
   http://publicsuffix.org [1].

   In the basic DMARC model, PSDs are not organizational domains and are
   thus not subject to DMARC processing.  In DMARC, domains fall into
   one of three categories: organizational domains, sub-domains of
   organizational domains, or PSDs.  A PSD can only publish DMARC policy
   for itself, and not for any sub-domains under it.  In some cases,
   this limitation allows for the abuse of non-existent organizational-
   level domains and hampers identification of domain abuse in email.

   This document specifies experimental updates to the DMARC
   specification cited above, in an attempt to mitigate this abuse.

1.1.  Example

   As an example, imagine a Top-Level Domain (TLD), ".example", that has
   public subdomains for government and commercial use (".gov.example"
   and ".com.example").  The maintainer of a list of such a PSD
   structure would include entries for both of these sub-domains,
   thereby indicating that they are PSDs, below which organizational
   domains can be registered.  Suppose further that there exists a
   legitimate domain called "tax.gov.example", registered within
   ".gov.example".

   However, by exploiting the typically unauthenticated nature of email,
   there are regular malicious campaigns to impersonate this
   organization that use similar-looking ("cousin") domains such as
   "t4x.gov.example".  Such domains are not registered.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

   Within the ".gov.example" public suffix, use of DMARC has been
   mandated, so "gov.example" publishes the following DMARC DNS record:

   _dmarc.gov.example. IN TXT ( "v=DMARC1; p=reject;"
                                "rua=mailto:dmc@dmarc.svc.gov.example" )

   This DMARC record provides policy and a reporting destination for
   mail sent from @gov.example.  Similarly, "tax.gov.example" will have
   a DMARC record that specifies policy for mail sent from addresses
   @tax.gov.example.  However, due to DMARC's current method of
   discovering and applying policy at the organizational domain level,
   the non-existent organizational domain of @t4x.gov.example does not
   and cannot fall under a DMARC policy.

   Defensively registering all variants of "tax" is not a scalable
   strategy.  The intent of this specification, therefore, is to enhance
   the DMARC discovery method by enabling an agent receiving such a
   message to be able to determine that a relevant policy is present at
   "gov.example", which is precluded by the current DMARC specification.

1.2.  Discussion

   This document provides a simple extension to [RFC7489] to allow
   operators of Public Suffix Domains (PSDs) to:

   o  Express policy at the level of the PSD that covers all
      organizational domains that do not explicitly publish DMARC
      records

   o  Extends the DMARC policy query functionality to detect and process
      such a policy

   o  Describes receiver feedback for such policies

   o  Provides controls to mitigate potential privacy considerations
      associated with this extension

   This document also provides a new DMARC tag to indicate requested
   handling policy for non-existent subdommains.  This is provided
   specifically to support phased deployment of PSD DMARC, but is
   expected to be useful more generally.  Undesired rejection risks for
   mail purporting to be from domains that do not exist are
   substantially lower than for those that do, so the operational risk
   of requesting harsh policy treatment (e.g. reject) is lower.

   As an additional benefit, the PSD DMARC extension clarifies existing
   requirements.  Based on the requirements of [RFC7489], DMARC should
   function above the organizational level for exact domain matches

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

   (i.e. if a DMARC record were published for 'example', then mail from
   example@example should be subject to DMARC processing).  Testing had
   revealed that this is not consistently applied in different
   implementations.

   There are two types of Public Suffix Operators (PSOs) for which this
   extension would be useful and appropriate:

   o  Branded PSDs (e.g., ".google"): These domains are effectively
      Organizational Domains as discussed in [RFC7489].  They control
      all subdomains of the tree.  These are effectively private
      domains, but listed in the current public suffix list.  They are
      treated as Public for DMARC purposes.  They require the same
      protections as DMARC Organizational Domains, but are currently
      unable to benefit from DMARC.

   o  Multi-organization PSDs that require DMARC usage (e.g., ".bank"):
      Because existing Organizational Domains using this PSD have their
      own DMARC policy, the applicability of this extension is for non-
      existent domains.  The extension allows the brand protection
      benefits of DMARC to extend to the entire PSD, including cousin
      domains of registered organizations.

   Due to the design of DMARC and the nature of the Internet email
   architecture [RFC5598], there are interoperability issues associated
   with DMARC deployment.  These are discussed in Interoperability
   Issues between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows [RFC7960].  These
   issues are not typically applicable to PSDs, since they (e.g., the
   ".gov.example" used above) do not typically send mail.

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.  Public Suffix Domain (PSD)

   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".  The domain name structure consists

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

   of a tree of names, each of which is made of a sequence of words
   ("labels") separated by period characters.  The root of the tree is
   simply called ".".  The Internet community at large, through
   processes and policies external to this work, selects points in this
   tree at which to register domain names "owned" by independent
   organizations.  Real-world examples are ".com", ".org", ".us", and
   ".gov.uk".  Names at which such registrations occur are called Public
   Suffix Domains (PSDs), and a registration consists of a label
   selected by the registrant to which a desirable PSD is appended.  For
   example, "ietf.org" is a registered domain name, and ".org" is its
   PSD.

2.3.  Organizational Domain

   The term Organizational Domains is defined in [RFC7489] Section 3.2.

2.4.  Longest PSD

   The longest PSD is the Organizational Domain with one label removed.
   It names the immediate parent node of the Organizational Domain in
   the DNS namespace tree.

2.5.  Public Suffix Operator (PSO)

   A Public Suffix Operator is an organization which manages operations
   within a PSD, particularly the DNS records published for names at and
   under that domain name.

2.6.  PSO Controlled Domain Names

   PSO Controlled Domain Names are names in the DNS that are managed by
   a PSO and are not available for use as Organizational Domains.  PSO
   Controlled Domain Names may have one (e.g., ".com") or more (e.g.,
   ".co.uk") name components, depending on PSD policy.

2.7.  Non-existent Domains

   For DMARC purposes, a non-existent domain is a domain for which there
   is an NXDOMAIN or NODATA response for A, AAAA, and MX records.  This
   is a broader definition than that in NXDOMAIN [RFC8020].

3.  PSD DMARC Updates to DMARC Requirements

   This document updates DMARC as follows:

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

3.1.  General Updates

   References to "Domain Owners" also apply to PSOs.

3.2.  Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format"

   A new tag is added after "fo":

   np:  Requested Mail Receiver policy for non-existent subdomains
      (plain-text; OPTIONAL).  Indicates the policy to be enacted by the
      Receiver at the request of the Domain Owner.  It applies only to
      non-existent subdomains of the domain queried and not to either
      existing subdomains or the domain itself.  Its syntax is identical
      to that of the "p" tag defined below.  If the 'np' tag is absent,
      the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the 'sp' tag is present)
      or the policy specified by the "p" tag, if the 'sp' tag is not
      present, MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains.  Note that
      "np" will be ignored for DMARC records published on subdomains of
      Organizational Domains and PSDs due to the effect of the DMARC
      policy discovery mechanism described in DMARC Section 6.6.3.

   The following tag definitions from DMARC are updated:

   p: The sentence 'Policy applies to the domain queried and to
      subdomains, unless subdomain policy is explicitly described using
      the "sp" tag' is updated to read 'Policy applies to the domain
      queried and to subdomains, unless subdomain policy is explicitly
      described using the "sp" or "np" tags.'

   sp:  The sentence 'If absent, the policy specified by the "p" tag
      MUST be applied for subdomains' is updated to read 'If both the
      'sp' tag is absent and the 'np' tag is either absent or not
      applicable, the policy specified by the "p" tag MUST be applied
      for subdomains.

3.3.  Changes in Section 6.5 "Domain Owner Actions"

   In addition to the DMARC domain owner actions, PSOs that require use
   of DMARC and participate in PSD DMARC ought to make that information
   available to receivers.  This document is an experimental mechanism
   for doing so.  See the [this document] experiment description
   (Appendix A).

3.4.  Changes in Section 6.6.1 "Extract Author Domain"

   Experience with DMARC has shown that some implementations short-
   circuit messages, bypassing DMARC policy application, when the domain
   name extracted by the receiver (from the RFC5322.From) is on the

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

   public suffix list used by the receiver.  This negates the capability
   being created by this specification.  Therefore, the following
   paragraph is appended to Section 6.6.1 of DMARC:

   Note that domain names that appear on a public suffix list are not
   exempt from DMARC policy application and reporting.

3.5.  Changes in 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 longest PSD (Section 2.4) of the
      Organizational Domain is one that the receiver has determined is
      acceptable for PSD DMARC (discussed in the [this document]
      experiment description (Appendix A)), the Mail Receiver MUST query
      the DNS for a DMARC TXT record at the DNS domain matching the
      [this document] longest PSD (Section 2.4) in place of the
      RFC5322.From domain in the message (if different).  A possibly
      empty set of records is returned.

   As an example, for a message with the Organizational Domain of
   "example.compute.cloudcompany.com.example", the query for PSD DMARC
   would use "compute.cloudcompany.com.example" as the [this document]
   longest PSD (Section 2.4).  The receiver would check to see if that
   PSD is listed in the DMARC PSD Registry, and if so, perform the
   policy lookup at "_dmarc.compute.cloudcompany.com.example".

   Note: Because the PSD policy query comes after the Organizational
   Domain policy query, PSD policy is not used for Organizational
   domains that have published a DMARC policy.  Specifically, this is
   not a mechanism to provide feedback addresses (RUA/RUF) when an
   Organizational Domain has declined to do so.

3.6.  Changes in Section 7 "DMARC Feedback"

   Operational note for PSD DMARC: For PSOs, feedback for non-existent
   domains is desirable and useful, just as it is for org-level DMARC
   operators.  See Section 4 of [this document] for discussion of
   Privacy Considerations for PSD DMARC.

4.  Privacy Considerations

   These privacy considerations are developed based on the requirements
   of [RFC6973].  Additionally, the Privacy Considerations of [RFC7489]
   apply to the mechanisms described by this document.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

4.1.  Feedback leakage

   Providing feedback reporting to PSOs can, in some cases, cause
   information to leak out of an organization to the PSO.  This leakage
   could potentially be utilized as part of a program of pervasive
   surveillance (See [RFC7624]).  There are roughly three cases to
   consider:

   o  Single Organization PSDs (e.g., ".google"), RUA and RUF reports
      based on PSD DMARC have the potential to contain information about
      emails related to entities managed by the organization.  Since
      both the PSO and the Organizational Domain owners are common,
      there is no additional privacy risk for either normal or non-
      existent Domain reporting due to PSD DMARC.

   o  Multi-organization PSDs that require DMARC usage (e.g., ".bank"):
      PSD DMARC based reports will only be generated for domains that do
      not publish a DMARC policy at the organizational or host level.
      For domains that do publish the required DMARC policy records, the
      feedback reporting addresses (RUA and RUF) of the organization (or
      hosts) will be used.  The only direct feedback leakage risk for
      these PSDs are for Organizational Domains that are out of
      compliance with PSD policy.  Data on non-existent cousin domains
      would be sent to the PSO.

   o  Multi-organization PSDs (e.g., ".com") that do not mandate DMARC
      usage: Privacy risks for Organizational Domains that have not
      deployed DMARC within such PSDs are significant.  For non-DMARC
      Organizational Domains, all DMARC feedback will be directed to the
      PSO.  PSD DMARC is opt-out (by publishing a DMARC record at the
      Organizational Domain level) vice opt-in, which would be the more
      desirable characteristic.  This means that any non-DMARC
      organizational domain would have its feedback reports redirected
      to the PSO.  The content of such reports, particularly for
      existing domains, is privacy sensitive.

   PSOs will receive feedback on non-existent domains, which may be
   similar to existing Organizational Domains.  Feedback related to such
   cousin domains have a small risk of carrying information related to
   an actual Organizational Domain.  To minimize this potential concern,
   PSD DMARC feedback MUST be limited to Aggregate Reports.  Feedback
   Reports carry more detailed information and present a greater risk.

   Due to the inherent Privacy and Security risks associated with PSD
   DMARC for Organizational Domains in multi-organization PSDs that do
   not particpate in DMARC, any Feedback Reporting related to multi-
   organizational PSDs MUST be limited to non-existent domains except in
   cases where the reporter knows that PSO requires use of DMARC.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not change the Security Considerations of
   [RFC7489] and [RFC7960].

   The risks of the issues identified in [RFC7489], Section 12.3, DNS
   Security, are amplified by PSD DMARC.  In particular, DNS cache
   poisoning (or Name Chaining), see [RFC3833] for details, consequences
   are increased because a successful attack would potentially have a
   much wider scope.

   The risks of the issues identified in [RFC7489], Section 12.5,
   External Reporting Addresses, are amplified by PSD DMARC.  By design,
   PSD DMARC causes unrequested reporting of feedback to entities
   external to the Organizational Domain.  This is discussed in more
   detail in Section 4.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This section describes actions requested to be completed by IANA.

6.1.  Subdomain Policy Tag

   IANA is requested to add a new tag to DMARC Tag Registry in the
   Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
   (DMARC) Parameters Registry.

   The entry is as follows:

   +----------+-----------+---------+-------------------------------+
   | Tag Name | Reference | Status  | Description                   |
   +----------+-----------+---------+-------------------------------+
   | np       | this      | current | Requested handling policy for |
   |          | document  |         | non-existent subdomains       |
   +----------+-----------+---------+-------------------------------+

7.  References

7.1.  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>.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

   [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>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [psddmarc.org]
              multiple, "PSD DMARC Web Site", April 2019,
              <https://psddmarc.org/>.

   [RFC3833]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain
              Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, DOI 10.17487/RFC3833, August
              2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3833>.

   [RFC5598]  Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5598>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC7624]  Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
              Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
              "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
              Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>.

   [RFC7960]  Martin, F., Ed., Lear, E., Ed., Draegen, T., Ed., 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>.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

7.3.  URIs

   [1] http://publicsuffix.org

Appendix A.  PSD DMARC Privacy Concern Mitigation Experiment

   The experiment being performed has three different questions which
   are looking to be addressed in this document.

   o  Section 3.2 modifies policy discovery to add an additional DNS
      lookup.  To determine if this lookup is useful, PSDs will add
      additional DMARC records in place, and will analyze the DMARC
      reports.  Success will be determined if a consensus of PSDs that
      publish DMARC records are able to collect useful data.

   o  Section 3.2 adds the "np" tag for non-existent subdomains (DNS
      NXDOMAIN).  PSOs wishing to test this will add this flag to their
      DMARC record, and will analyze DMARC reports for deployment.
      Success will be determined if organizations find explicitly
      blocking non-existent subdomains domains desirable and provide
      added value.

   o  Section 4.1 discusses three cases where providing feedback could
      cause information to leak out of an organization.  This experiment
      will analyze the feedback reports generated for each case to
      determine if there is information leakage.

Appendix B.  DMARC PSD Registry Examples

   To facilitate experimentation around data leakage mitigation, samples
   of the DNS based and IANA like registries are available at
   [psddmarc.org].

B.1.  DMARC PSD DNS Query Service

   A sample stand-alone DNS query service is available at
   [psddmarc.org].  It was developed based on the contents suggested for
   an IANA registry in an earlier revision of this draft.  Usage of the
   service is described on the web site.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

B.2.  DMARC Public Suffix Domain (PSD) Registry

   [psddmarc.org] provides an IANA like DMARC Public Suffix Domain (PSD)
   Registry as a stand-alone DNS query service.  It follows the contents
   and structure described below.  There is a Comma Separated Value
   (CSV) version of the listed PSD domains which is suitable for use in
   build updates for PSD DMARC capable software.

   Names of PSDs participating in PSD DMARC must be registered this new
   registry.  New entries are assigned only for PSDs that require use of
   DMARC.  The requirement has to be documented in a manner that
   satisfies the terms of Expert Review, per [RFC8126].  The Designated
   Expert needs to confirm that provided documentation adequately
   describes PSD policy to require domain owners to use DMARC or that
   all domain owners are part of a single organization with the PSO.

   The initial set of entries in this registry is as follows:

   +-------------+---------------+
   |    PSD      | Status        |
   +-------------+---------------+
   | .bank       | current       |
   +-------------+---------------+
   | .insurance  | current       |
   +-------------+---------------+
   | .gov.uk     | current       |
   +-------------+---------------+
   | .mil        | current       |
   +-------------+---------------+

B.3.  DMARC PSD PSL Extension

   [psddmarc.org] provides a file formatted like the Public Suffix List
   (PSL) in order to facilitate identification of PSD DMARC
   participants.  Contents are functionally identical to the IANA like
   registry, but presented in a different format.

   When using this approach, the input domain of the extension lookup is
   supposed to be the output domain of the regular PSL lookup, i.e.  the
   organizational domain.  This alternative data approach is potentially
   useful since DMARC implementations already need to be able to parse
   the data format, so it should be easier to implement.

Appendix C.  Implementations

   There are two known implementations of PSD DMARC available for
   testing.

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                  PSD DMARC                     April 2021

C.1.  Authheaders Module

   The authheaders Python module and command line tool is available for
   download or installation from Pypi (Python Packaging Index).

   It supports both use of the DNS based query service and download of
   the CSV registry file from [psddmarc.org].

C.2.  Zdkimfilter Module

   The zdkimfilter module is a separately available add-on to Courier-
   MTA.

   Mostly used for DKIM signing, it can be configured to also verify,
   apply DMARC policies, and send aggregate reports.  For PSD DMARC it
   uses the PSL extension list approach, which is available from
   [psddmarc.org]

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions (both
   public and private) to improving this document.  Special shout out to
   Dave Crocker for naming the beast.

   Kurt Andersen, Seth Blank, Dave Crocker, Heather Diaz, Tim Draegen,
   Zeke Hendrickson, Andrew Kennedy, John Levine, Dr Ian Levy, Craig
   Schwartz, Alessandro Vesely, and Tim Wicinski

Authors' Addresses

   Scott Kitterman
   fTLD Registry Services
   600 13th Street, NW, Suite 400
   Washington, DC  20005
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 301 325-5475
   Email: scott@kitterman.com

   Tim Wicinski (editor)
   Elkins, WV  26241
   USA

   Email: tjw.ietf@gmail.com

Kitterman & Wicinski    Expires October 14, 2021               [Page 14]