Martin,

I've been in all-day meetings the past two days, but didn't want you to think I 
was ignoring you.  I'll respond more appropriately in the next few days. 
Apologies

-- 
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 8:45 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; last-
> [email protected]
> Subject: Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-26
> 
> Reviewer: Martin Thomson
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> Thanks for the new sections describing the format.  I found them very helpful.
> I don't know what your alternatives look like, but I found this quite
> comprehensible.
> 
> > S2.5 says "the Mail Receiver MAY send a short report indicating that a
> > report is available but could not be sent" - how?
> 
> This issue remains.  The text is expanded, but it still includes "the URI 
> refers to a
> service that is unreachable".  A short report won't get there any better than 
> a
> fully one.  I get size limits, but not that part. Consider rephrasing.
> 
> > It's not clear to me that the strict rules regarding the construction
> > of
> filenames and subjects is justified, especially when the report contains the 
> same
> information.
> 
> We discussed this and it seems to overly proscribe behaviour, beyond what
> interop calls for.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> > S3 defines a validation process that involves querying DNS at
> > "<provider
> > name>._report._dmarc.<target name>".  This will fail when this string
> > name>is too
> > long [...]
> 
> Discussed and I'm satisfied with the response.  However, it is definitely 
> worth
> noting that owners of long domains will need to find owners of short domains 
> to
> outsource to, or do it for themselves.
> 
> > The schema [...]
> 
> NEW: I completely missed that this replaces RFC 7489.  It's mentioned only in 
> the
> document header and acknowledgments.  Please add notes to the abstract and
> consider including a section that explains the differences.
> 

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to