Me too Ale


Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 1, 2025, at 14:21, Marco Tiloca <[email protected]> wrote:


Hi Alessandro,

It looks good to me; thanks for addressing my comments!

Best,
/Marco

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 7:13 PM
To: dmarc-ietf <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Christian Huitema <[email protected]>; Marco Tiloca <[email protected]>; Tim Wicinski <[email protected]>
Subject: Changes after draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-20 ietf last call reviews
 
Hi all,

I just modified the GitHub Repository to address three reviews I received.  Please see the commit:
https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">


A couple of hints couldn't be addressed:

Christian Huitema wrote:
> Second nit: the privacy consideration rightly point out the
> privacy risk of reporting failures. The DMARC bis draft clearly states
> that sending the failure reports is optional. To quote, "Experience
> has shown, however, that Mail Receivers rightly concerned about
> protecting user privacy have either chosen to heavily redact the
> information in such reports (which can hinder their usefulness) or
> not send them at all." It would be very nice if some form of
> this advice was repeated in the introduction.

The last sentences of the Introduction are as follows:

     It is important to note that these reports can contain the header fields
     or sometimes the entire content of a failed message, which may contain
     personally identifiable information (PII). The potential disclosure of PII
     should be considered when deciding whether to request failure reports as a
     Domain Owner, or what information to include or redact in failure reports
     when creating them as a Mail Receiver, or whether to create failure reports
     at all; see Section 7.

This seems to already address the point, so I didn't add more.


Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Optional editorial suggestions (e.g., acronym expansions or grammar fixes).
>
> - **Example**:
>
>  > *Abstract*: Expand "NFV" on first use.
>
>  > Section 3.1: "it’s" -> "its".*


I didn't find these.


Shall I post -21 as is?


Thanks everybody.
Best
Ale
--




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

Reply via email to