On Mon 28/Dec/2020 15:54:24 +0100 ned+dmarc wrote:
>
>> I still think it'd be a good idea to mention RFC 6590...
>
> Why? RFC 6590 documents a generic approach to partial information hiding. It
> does not specify how to apply this technique to DMARC failure reports, and
> doing so effectively requires a careful assessment of what needs to be hidden
> and what does not, and that in turn drags in all of the specifics we need to
> avoid in a base document of this sort.
The failure-reporting draft references RFC6591. The only appearance of the
term "redaction" occurs in the 2nd paragraph of Section 4.1:
Referencing an approved standards document on failure reporting formats is
perfectly reasonable and even necessary.
These reports may expose sender and recipient identifiers (e.g.,
RFC5322.From addresses), and although the [RFC6591] format used for
failed-message reporting supports redaction, failed-message reporting
is capable of exposing the entire message to the report recipient.
RFC6591 doesn't go into a very detailed description. It references RFC6590:
For privacy reasons, report generators might need to redact portions
of a reported message, such as an identifier or address associated
with the end user whose complaint action resulted in the report. A
discussion of relevant issues and a suggested method for doing so can
be found in [RFC6590].
RFC6590, in turn, avoids the specifics of what exactly needs to be redacted.
However, it mentions the local parts of email addresses.
If anything this is an even stronger case for not referencing RFC 6590 here -
it's unnnecessary because the reference is already in the failure reporting
format specification.
I also note that RFC 6591 was published in 2012, long before PII became such a
contentious issue. Timing can be everything.
> P.S. I hadn't looked at RFC 6589 before, and I have to say I find its
> standards-track status to be nothing short of astonishing. How on earth do
> you assess interoperability?
Maybe it's the ability to relate reports from the same source with one another
which makes them manageable. Producers of actionable reports and consumers who
react properly can be said to interoperate, can't they?
Absent agreement on what gets redacted and how? Not even close.
RFC 6590 doesn't even pass muster as a BCP, since it describes an overall
approach to solving a range of problems and explictly does not recommend
a particular practice.
This is an informational document, nothing more and nothing less.
Ned
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
