Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-10.txt

[Neil Anuskiewicz <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 17, 2024, at 9:12 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Sun 17/Mar/2024 16:50:40 +0100 internet-drafts wrote:
>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-10.txt is now available. It
>> is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting &
>> Conformance (DMARC) WG of the IETF.
>>    Title:   Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) Failure Reporting
>>    Authors: Steven M Jones
>>             Alessandro Vesely
>>    Name:    draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-10.txt
>>    Pages:   16
>>    Dates:   2024-03-17
> 
> 
> However we close the fifth point of issue 133[*], I added a new paragraph to delimit failure reporting scope:
> 
>     3. Other Failure Reports
> 
>    This document only describes DMARC failure reports. DKIM failure reports
>    [RFC6651] and SPF failure reports [RFC6652] are described in their own
>    documents. A Report Generator issuing a DMARC failure report may or may not
>    simultaneously issue also a failure report specific to the failed
>    authentication mechanism, according to its policy.
> 
> It adds RFC665{1,2} as Informative References.
> 
> Keep it?  Change it, but how?  Strike it?
> 
> 
> Best
> Ale
> 
Do you all think we should mention the decline and fall of the failure report? I think that Yahoo! is the only major MBP that still sends failure reports. I think the others may have stopped over PII concerns.

N