IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dmarc-ietf] PSD Related Privacy Considerations For Aggregate Reporting Draft

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 19 December 2022 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
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 A13FDC1524D8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 07:43:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=+EXp+5vU; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=eFa0hk33
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JY0BTS4z9_pN for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 07:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1106C1524D6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 07:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820B3F80270 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 10:43:32 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1671464597; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=FfBWeh0wACpqp9xwE/rIupfN38WzesvoR0bnCHd3nFQ=; b=+EXp+5vUVGLqAj+BghGrsAK1gpC37GbxE8tDdEwXezracoedHLgjrBtOHxsGpsNpmREtv apRA+E0ER6kf78CAA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1671464597; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=FfBWeh0wACpqp9xwE/rIupfN38WzesvoR0bnCHd3nFQ=; b=eFa0hk33+c2BHDrPCGX9YxhfpVfPo1wJJWADXzSP/uF7Kv94pEZsHpTsOtuBioTTTvOEB OV0h1Tw3G5UavC7lDNVESl1Yu4OHViS3pgl/oYSxncPmaHF9c6W0sVAWABo7sLgi9mJf0qP 7EFUjpql2P/zqu0bc8qG5+hUAUicu3HnS0W5yW6/AIxVLVj+JkbXgKYohSmM1J6DHvIc40M 0qIwHy1uP2hDP5+3bBaCqGj9iNYrYs+wi89ELGXIJCXZBr9X0rP+qMsHz3+Sj363PLG+i6+ q0H0YWnBoGE0QABqIL7h/P1PgeGipGgRzJyrIyx0hm8kEyK3MeiXChZcCTbg==
Received: from zini-1880.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B0AF801DB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 10:43:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 10:43:12 -0500
Message-ID: <11529029.Y877iPkkNG@zini-1880>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lTZSgyolRzAiQ8-hDG3bqKIAZxo>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] PSD Related Privacy Considerations For Aggregate Reporting Draft
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:43:47 -0000

The RFC 9091 privacy considerations, with minor updates need to be 
incorporated into the DMARCbis effort.  Given the constraints on PSDs 
requesting failure reports, they belong in the aggregate draft.  I've opened a 
PR to, with some light editing, pull them in:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/pull/15

I don't think it should be particularly controversial, since it's almost 
exactly what the WG already agreed for RFC 9091, but people should review it.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email