On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:44 PM Barry Leiba via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> Barry Leiba has requested publication of > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-21 as Proposed Standard on behalf of > the DMARC working group. > > Please verify the document's state at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ AD Evaluation remarks, in no particular order (nothing too terrible): * Section 1: It's sort-of there, but it might be helpful to state explicitly that definitions from DMARCbis (e.g., "Domain Owner") are imported here. * Section 2.1 paragraph 4 says you "should" (lowercase) generate a distinct report for each policy domain, and then paragraph 7 makes this a MUST. * Section 2.1 paragraph 8 talks about the first mandatory section being "the metadata section", while the next paragraph appears to call it "the data section". * Section 2.1 i invokes the "RFC5321.RcptTo" syntax to identify an element in the envelope, a syntax introduced by RFC 5598, but that RFC isn't referenced. * Section 2.1 lists all the DKIM and SPF results in one long string separated by slashes. I suggest making this a bulleted list or a table, or just say "any valid result value per RFC 8601". * What's the normative SHOULD in Section 2.4 for? When might an implementer decide to do something else? What breaks if you do? * Section 2.6 starts talking about reporting URIs, which are specified in DMARCbis rather than here. A reference might be helpful. * Section 2.6.2 says the message has to comply with both RFC5322 and RFC2045. What's going on here? Why is it required to be MIME? Could it not be a plain message that happens to contain XML? Or are we trying to say there has to be a text/xml part that contains the report, and maybe other parts that provide additional information for humans? This question might be answered by the next paragraph, in which case this might just need some copy editing. * Section 2.6.2 requires gzip. What about other methods like zstd which can provide better compression? * Section 2.6.2: The "dmarc-subject" ABNF needs some wrapping (or at least the text rendering is kinda messy). * Please sort out your Acknowledgements section (which currently just says "TBD") before we send this forward. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
