Re: [dmarc-ietf] nits in draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Fri, 07 May 2021 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5CAE3A2EF3 for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 12:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TyeP2XNiknWc for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 12:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C6363A2EF1 for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 12:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x17so898983vsc.0 for <>; Fri, 07 May 2021 12:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f5ozPD3RqLvEfve0piBAlPcdCM+aagPH3mXknIxzOZU=; b=KVnmiCAb2h0PtegOaW+wIYpqrp472u/Wxy0Ew+iW8jGz8IvfvLbISW+l7096gteEPu kJfRqnjVQvHNVsWWD/WiAlfa4OgqVYmiCbYauaR/H82UyvIH9B7Mkk/yLVZiXb6o2kru M6AEO30nfwCigpeMQsnAkIfLvNlx5x9LGrDu5DGUBLi5rC+zBkkTJNvFvrKW/pE4jwSR ukIeFCDlV3/v0BbdndEC6M17nIwhnBhI15uvzvRCM46oGehEq/J0rh6owt/ejipkeJH/ n6d4y6jgIIz7SYqjvRkcctV8ld4oJhvE7+ivUkyjjJKG01fYTtTOogqV4fzWDwDjwIQT 3bZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f5ozPD3RqLvEfve0piBAlPcdCM+aagPH3mXknIxzOZU=; b=reXJAq85xtpjrfTi30GHaqflDJ+FHHYZ0bEdl2pv3mbeshyYR5CzjHj6cxIArsvu9f cEqMf0LpvjFrBWEoBMgwlKI5WgoHeIcl92UxPwDJSV3C3OJDKAyBuLB9HjVxrwZAlysD nIpplAn6WoRpek07HIGHzA1lXIE/ey7dNk1ERWLmslf8walYp3N2e/OKBklZute62tna NtC8Wbwcuu7prfpUmXJmoc4yVPM8/PGhAXT9WO6uThr6mW75Sx7c3iG6ApO7aboRXx3U +O3JVkujHMVf9hqnV+6h1EVkR0T+WwgZH/rZMJA+f7WdVXG9yKT2yWxGJkiZcv4LNXlW 326g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vNnJqToOYcbF/ErpUrRI2d9jkSeBt3m5mMBmO1t2PvmY5NuLK 2hiirDQXbT5qaT8kbox9X5B8iBT1CNrIxlZRJ3G+CrzflBI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwF/gpzvE7ct2ryfYc7p7Mtu0+AlxOmR/uLaOkeWDI7qRTym6tQ2vkWFt4PpZj5If8CZc8mqQuDftY/LwYIY9c=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ed4e:: with SMTP id m14mr10919139vsp.40.1620414835463; Fri, 07 May 2021 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20210507164115.462AE720C41@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20210507164115.462AE720C41@ary.qy>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 12:13:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <>, Alex Brotman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a81d7005c1c23a80"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] nits in draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 19:14:02 -0000

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 9:46 AM John Levine <> wrote:

> >  2.  I’d welcome other inputs here on the original idea for this
> option.  I would imagine modern systems would be able to deal with rather
> >large XML files, though MTAs routinely set limits under 50M for accepting
> messages.
> I suggested an option to deliver reports by https POST or PUT, like
> MTA-STS does,
> with precious little interest, even though it's a much more efficient way
> to ship
> large files around since it doesn't need base64 encoding and doesn't relay.

I agree that it's optimal.  But long ago (in DKIM, at least) we took note
of the fact that mail people and DNS people in large organizations are
often not the same teams and sometimes it's hard for one to get something
out of the other.  If that logic also holds for mail people and web people,
I imagine the lack of interest here has a similar basis; we're talking
about standing up a whole service or endpoint here, not just adding records
to a zone file.