IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-03.txt

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 19 August 2021 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE0E3A0C24 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 04:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id woLrejb2Tbn0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 04:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94B753A0C1D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 04:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1629371917; bh=aC9PoNVxSv21IiKi+kpcV3lPDgwJaZtGmyZq7+Mibd0=; l=684; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DW0wUJtU/kvi3isJycbB1iYeB6cxiVgHKc3K3RDGQBZjRzmZ33E+2DZeedelBPmUt 4XzqKzMlKhyfXeIuauzKsptZTkjozGOHj9BFeUHEzQ4ICI29XW6gcK5+v1xuzSiRr5 vDxmc6dvoAtx9QLyqhQhJHGkNNfpMqa9NZbdTxOOBe446qxzIZB2xKViZ84d/
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([2.198.14.132]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0CE.00000000611E3E0D.00003308; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:18:37 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <162931814528.27585.7766323503338537947@ietfa.amsl.com> <MN2PR11MB435135100512B84A5FC86CFDF7FF9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <2c64b7b4-b758-ec8c-e233-6016ad4ba205@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:18:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB435135100512B84A5FC86CFDF7FF9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/fP9f0H3HLANGEEHoUvUJOSTEXCY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 11:18:48 -0000

On Wed 18/Aug/2021 22:30:06 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> If you feel as though something is amiss, or I've misinterpreted the consensus, please let me know.


I'd swap SHOULD and MUST between the following sentences:

     If a report generator needs to re-send a report, the system
     SHOULD use the same filename as the original report.

and

     The RFC5322.Subject field for individual report submissions
     MUST conform to the following ABNF:

For the subject, alternatively, "Report-Id" msg-id could be optional, 
as it is with the filename.  It is very noisy and doesn't seem to be 
much useful if it doesn't match the filename, let alone its uniqueness.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email