Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-08.txt

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Mon 27/Mar/2023 18:29:03 +0200 internet-drafts wrote:
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-08


There are some shortcomings, IMHO:

             If a reporter discovers data where there exists a logical	
    problem with the result, it is likely in the best interests of all to	
    report this to the report generator.

I'd stick to the terms _report consumer_ and _report generatos_.  That is,
s/If a reporter/If a report consumer/.


  dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS       ; "Report"
                  %x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS    ; "Domain:"
                  domain-name 1*FWS               ; from RFC 6376
                  %x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:"
                  1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS
                  %x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:"
                  ridtxt / '<' ridtxt '>'         ; defined below

Didn't we agree to use RFC 7405?  That would lead to something like:

  dmarc-subject = %s"Report" 1*FWS %s"Domain:" 1*FWS
                  domain-name 1*FWS               ; policy domain
                  %s"Submitter:" 1*FWS
                  domain-name 1*FWS               ; report generator
                  [ %s"Report-ID:" 1*FWS
                  ridtxt / "<" ridtxt ">" ]       ; defined below

Note that neither RFC 5234 nor RFC 7405 are mentioned in References.
[For square brackets, see attached picture.]


  9. Appendix B. Sample Report

(Nit: this should be Appendix B, not Section 9).


<feedback xmlns="http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.2">
   <version>1.0</version>

My bad.  Should be xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dmarc-2.0", according to Section 5.



Best
Ale
--