[dmarc-ietf] Re: Changes after draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-20 ietf last call reviews

[tjw ietf]

Me too Ale Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2025, at 14:21, Marco Tiloca <marco.til...@ri.se> wrote:  Hi Alessandro, It looks good to me; thanks for addressing my comments! Best, /Marco From: Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 7:13 PM To: dmarc-ietf <dmarc@ietf.org>; last-c...@ietf.org <last-c...@ietf.org> Cc: Christian Huitema <huit...@huitema.net>; Marco Tiloca <marco.til...@ri.se>; Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> 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 -- dmarc@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org