On Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:36:15 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:23 AM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:57:16 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:57 AM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > I agree. The one thing I think would be useful would be to move more > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > text relating to failure reporting out of DMARCbis and into the > > > > failure > > > > reporting draft. > > > > [snip] > > > > > I'm not sure that the work you're proposing isn't already done in > > > > DMARCbis. > > > > > For example, section 7.4, Reporting, reads in its entirety "Discussion > > > of > > > both aggregate and failure reporting have been moved to separate > > > > documents > > > > > dedicated to the topics." > > > > > > I'm curious to see the specifics you propose - > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/ > > > > There are a few things: > > > > In 5.3, General Record Format, move the fo and ruf definitions. Unknown > > tags > > MUST be ignored, so there's no need to define all the tags in this > > document. > > This would have some knock on effects in 5.4, Formal Definition and 9.4, > > > DMARC > > Tag Registry. > > I disagree with the idea of moving tag definitions from DMARCbis to another > document, as it strikes me that DMARCbis is the correct place to discuss > the format of a DMARC policy record, including all possible tags therein. > I'm willing to be overruled by consensus, but I disagree. > > [snip]
I think that's a reasonable position and I can live with it either way. Generally I think the less said about failure reporting in DMARCbis the better. > > The examples in B.2.2 and B.2.3, regardless of this proposed change, > > should > > refer to the failure reporting draft (and would even more definitely need > > to > > with the proposed change). > > I'm not sure I agree with the idea of moving these examples, either, simply > because of my position that DMARCbis is the place to define all the tags, > and so seems the best place to show examples of declarations of those tags. > If the consensus is to move these sections to the Failure Reporting doc, > then to be consistent B.2.1 and B.2.4 would be moved to the Aggregate > Reporting doc, because they both have rua tags, and at that point we have > an empty section of Domain Owner Examples in DMARCbis. I wasn't suggesting that the examples be moved. I agree with your concerns. I do think that the discussion of the example in B.2.2 and B.2.3 should include a reference to the failure reporting draft. Similarly I think B.2.1 and B.2.4 should reference the aggregate reporting draft. Looking this over, I also notice that in Section 6 we still reference RFC 9091 privacy considerations. I think those ought to be brought into DMARCbis and the pointer then should be to the DMARCbis privacy considerations. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
