>We'd like others to review and encourage further discussion relating to these >drafts. Thank >you for your time.
Reporting is an important part of the design and I'd like the WG to adopt the draft. Having said that, the draft is missing a lot of details on how the reports are sent. Fortunately, most of the details can be borrowed from DMARC: the report is a file of JSON with a name created by a rule combining the reporter, the recipient and a timestamp, compressed with gzip and sent as an application/gzip attachment. This is exactly like DMARC, substituting JSON for XML. DMARC originally had both http and mail reporting. I noticed fairly late in the process that the http reporting in the spec wouldn't actually work, so either they should fix the spec or take it out. Since nobody had done http reporting and nobody was planning to, they took it out. Same choice here: it'd be easy enough to fix the text saying that the https reporting does a PUT of an application/gzip just like the one that'd be attached to the mail, but unless someone has a concrete plan to implement it, I'd take it out. R's, John _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
