Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD Related Privacy Considerations For Aggregate Reporting Draft

Since the concept of non-existing domains is important from this privacy
perspective, should we call out how we suggest that is determined?
On top of my head, using the example from the dmarcbis, would the DNS
lookups actually become 6 in this case (plus one WHOIS lookup)?

   1. _dmarc.a.b.c.d.e.mail.example.com *[does not exist]*
   2. _dmarc.e.mail.example.com *[does not exist]*
   3. _dmarc.mail.example.com *[does not exist]*
   4. _dmarc.example.com *[does not exist]*
   5. _dmarc.com *[do exist]*
   6. example.com
   - If this succeeds; we know the domain exists
      - If this does not exist - should we recommend making a WHOIS lookup
      for example.com?

Or should we just leave it to the mailbox providers to decide for
themselves how to do this?
/E

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 6:49 PM Brotman, Alex <Alex_Brotman=
40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Thanks Scott.  I'll try to get this merged in the next few days. I have
> two other merges from Ale that I need to sort out.  I'll get a new rev done
> after they're both merged.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Alex Brotman
> Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
> Comcast
>
> ________________________________________
> From: dmarc <dmarc-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Scott Kitterman <
> sklist@kitterman.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 10:43 AM
> To: IETF DMARC WG
> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] PSD Related Privacy Considerations For Aggregate
> Reporting Draft
>
> The RFC 9091 privacy considerations, with minor updates need to be
> incorporated into the DMARCbis effort.  Given the constraints on PSDs
> requesting failure reports, they belong in the aggregate draft.  I've
> opened a
> PR to, with some light editing, pull them in:
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/pull/15__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!E1ob9b6zOndeoRR8Tg7UMGAjqaq9Oo_z3eoYEByvsS-ttdsgNKpMMLcme9a-O1864chySx8TnYuf_EiF96H_$
>
> I don't think it should be particularly controversial, since it's almost
> exactly what the WG already agreed for RFC 9091, but people should review
> it.
>
> Scott K
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!E1ob9b6zOndeoRR8Tg7UMGAjqaq9Oo_z3eoYEByvsS-ttdsgNKpMMLcme9a-O1864chySx8TnYuf_IbBOtPw$
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>