Re: [dmarc-ietf] spec nit

Hello Tomki,

The schema for reports is:

first element is <feedback/>, it includes <policy_published/> . <policy_published/> contains <domain/>.  

Do you propose to include in the <domain/> the base domain, that declared implicitly or explicitly the sp= tag, and then
cummulate all data for that domain and subdomains in the same xml.gz report, or do you propose to include several xml.gz
files for each domain in a single email?

Alternative approaches to reduce the amount of emails are:
- include one or more xml reports in a single email, e.g. based on derived policy via the sp= mechanism

- group reports for a single domain owner into one email with many xml files, provided that the recipient address of the
reports is the same.  Here sp= is irrelevant.  This is tricky, when the recitient addresses for two domains overlap, but
are not identical.

- group xml.gz reports for many domain owners (or many distinct second level domains) into a single email, provided that
the recipients of the different reports would be the same.

Regards
  Дилян

On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 18:04 -0700, Tomki wrote:
> The spec appears to be unclear on how subdomains are to be reported - ie 
> most but not all implementations have performed this as intended, in the 
> same XML as the top level domain (when the subdomain does not have its 
> own DMARC TXT record)
> 
> Cisco interpreted the current definition to mean that every subdomain 
> seen should get its own XML file. (not just the ones with their own 
> DMARC record)  This results in every individual IronPort system [which 
> has DMARC reporting enabled] generating hundreds to thousands of extra 
> reports every day.
> This can result in corporate reporters like Paypal or Rolls Royce 
> (IronPort users) sending as many reports in a given day as Google.
> 
> The section which should be referred to in implementing a reporting 
> engine is 7.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-7.2
> The only relevant bullet that I find here is
> " The report SHOULD include the following data:"
> ....
>    "Data for each Domain Owner's subdomain separately from mail from
>        the sender's Organizational Domain, even if there is no explicit
>        subdomain policy"
> 
> In trying to find out why Cisco implemented their reporting in the way 
> that they did, I've actually had a hard time understanding how others 
> understood that bullet point well enough - I can only imagine that 
> everybody just implemented by following examples of existing 
> implementations.
> 
> A suggested rewording for that bullet point:
> " Data for each Domain Owner's subdomains as separate records in a 
> report titled for the Organizational Domain, unless there is an explicit 
> subdomain policy - in which case a standalone report is generated for 
> that subdomain"
> 
> --Tomki
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] spec nit - subdomains reporting clarity