Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Thu 05/Sep/2019 15:35:29 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> If we didn't care about privacy, this would be easy.  That's the hard
>>> part that does not have a clear solution.  One thing that is clear is
>>> that it's not the PSL.  PSL is a collector of assertions from operators,
>>> so it fails to meet the attributes laid out in A.1.>>
>> Failure reports are considerably less implemented than aggregate ones. 
>> The current spec doesn't mention any privacy risk in its Security 
>> Considerations section.  However, some concern must exist, otherwise the
>> difference in implementations cannot be easily explained.  The I-D at hand
>> touches on this point marginally.  A general consideration would better
>> fit in DMARCbis.>
> That's because there's an entire separate section on privacy considerations.


My bad English.  By "current spec" I meant rfc7489.


Best
Ale
--