Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Tue 01/Dec/2020 23:21:48 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
> We would like to close this ticket by Dec 15, two weeks from now, so short 
> trenchant comments are welcome.
> 
> [...]
> 
> We can adapt the approach MTA-STS uses in RFC 8460.
> 
> If rua= has an https URI, the reporter uses HTTP POST to that URI with
> the report as an uncompressed or gzipped XML file as the POST body.


TL;DR: neutral

Delivery via https, with possible retry queue, imposes an additional burden to 
report producers.  Since there seem to be less producers than consumers, it may 
be fair to grant the choice of transport to the former.  That is, to make the 
mailto scheme mandatory and https optional.

Even if the the spec allows consumers to specify the transport they like 
better, there will probably be producers which only honor one type.  So, 
consumers may want to specify both schemes anyway.

A better means to control report size is to gauge the reporting interval.

The addition of the new transport doesn't seem to simplify things.  I fail to 
see the advantage, but I can cope with it if it comes.



Best
Ale
--