Re: [dmarc-ietf] Extensions in Aggregate Reporting - Feedback Requested

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 14 June 2021 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7013A29D4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DytTbpGYkojb for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5314E3A29D3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1623688076; bh=oyD6iyRO797hSwZbW254rMObRGBH2yaLFbKgbUQd0lE=; l=1387; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CD1cS3FevQdlLoaSMHP9Mz5zwa0PwBp/5DmkMj5cXraNbOtyWBZR9EIFYQUgnNxrI ELKR4Hr4N39rfdCj8szZgS4d66DmSIeYp9uwjJj9+e3ycqKX8f5zpclt1OrFg/Kfkm OZiJFDW0fNVDY7bToa/kIDevfkWf+uGmUtGnFioO5RsqzCSniNsVkEwJilbMw
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC026.0000000060C7838C.00003727; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:27:56 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <MN2PR11MB4351A6C5A477DB006CB6DD72F73C9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <f04b1dfa-2707-a67e-4df8-bf82d637f4f8@tana.it> <e213afa6-c777-d0a6-48ac-43965ff264cd@wander.science> <MN2PR11MB4351B731B053D51E093BBE51F7319@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <90a281ff-5d3c-7a6f-e162-bab8e654fbf1@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:27:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4351B731B053D51E093BBE51F7319@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/1YbB_NaM_ccZ0D-AyB0QJxgxlgU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Extensions in Aggregate Reporting - Feedback Requested
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:28:07 -0000

On Mon 14/Jun/2021 14:41:44 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> 
> I agree that all elements, each time they are utilized, should mention a reference as to how they are to be utilized.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So, a sample report may look something like:
> 
>     <feedback>
>       <version>2.0</version>
>       <report_metadata>
>         <version>2</version>


So why doesn't <feedback> mention a reference to how it is utilized?

About that overabundance of <version>'s, the 1st entry, right below <feedback>, is the aggregate report version.  Thus far, we agreed that it is useless as a grammar indication if <feedback> contains its namespace declaration.  However, Matt noted that there may be parsers that consider reports to be pre-IETF drafts if they miss the <version> element.  In this case, it makes sense to keep <version>1.0</version> for backward compatibility, especially if we try not to break existing parsers.

The second <version> entry, inside <report_metadata>, had better wear a different name, to avoid confusion.  I assume it's meant to be the report reference version.  A couple of alternative examples:

     <report_metadata>
       <generator>https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenDMARC/releases/tag/rel-opendmarc-1-4-1</generator>

or

     <report_metadata>
       <generator>
         <url>http://www.trusteddomain.org/opendmarc/</url>
         <version>1.4.1</version>
       </generator>


Best
Ale
--