IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 19 December 2022 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
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 2B0FCC14F5E0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:29:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=alymUC8I; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=bDK5Stnx
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u_QMkHEsMx0A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0736BC159484 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:29:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9531EF80270 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:29:02 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1671467318; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=VpAGukH7oi0BAQoG4dujkNgVbPALTgv9CRkc7HJAMUg=; b=alymUC8ILVMekVvVw+Dhgz8NPU0SQSR9Qfx20of0ZQJFu9ikrm8CIVNBK73vVvitEmMqd +bf/rrbVCxf926iAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1671467318; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=VpAGukH7oi0BAQoG4dujkNgVbPALTgv9CRkc7HJAMUg=; b=bDK5Stnx8tnUaMX1CUCyH+aO9gOYvzQwpuE6+Gy3rIwwcwOd9Hjw+2T5Vna6722acoFUl C6Sqktww0ixlI8QpmOUwpntifwSOMf/MHLko/BkKzCYldWwZjtqqSR7ZRSdlRt9z9xWh0Zb MCq+gtXZea5FrniqZaV5BWkIvvHAqw5nnjlfkV0iT/k4eghKF4iV8o4+GWcJ7yifjyi8HTP JA049otxN+4rRSnIbgmlnEHJvrqT8qyn6lyr3AHCFVxQIUmcmMeFwxjQCNHmuLUcwDOMSJs 20QvvfQno5e3AWAn7/PLJY08oKLt+OnXBH14dS2Ggh7oT6vs4nuAXlsj5cZw==
Received: from zini-1880.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521F8F801DB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:28:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:28:34 -0500
Message-ID: <2281997.dQyOQUpJ3n@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <11529029.Y877iPkkNG@zini-1880>
References: <11529029.Y877iPkkNG@zini-1880>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/AvL2L9ElmZ65FYOA189fMe5YTb4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] PSD Related Privacy Considerations For Failure Reporting Draft
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 19 Dec 2022 16:29:19 -0000

On Monday, December 19, 2022 10:43:12 AM EST Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/pull/1
> 5
> 
> 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.

Similarly for the failure reporting draft:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/pull/4

This is not based on RFC 9091, but aligns to what the current DMARCbis draft 
says.  Please review.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email