Re: [dmarc-ietf] Discussion - ARC/Extensible Reporting (Ticket #56)

Alessandro Vesely <> Thu, 03 December 2020 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD523A0CEF for <>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:44:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e9hYAMe4Sgj1 for <>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:44:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982213A0CCF for <>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:43:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1607024626; bh=/vZu4izi5bikgJfisnBb+5SUz5fmMqOcw4AaaaDOxOc=; l=2895; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DhNtuf8WSPYDexQ7lfhNo+aSFLoY/DO3C7GDBddDGdcN3Y0a9Ub7ivBjlDvvgYxRP RYQbezN1ryNHriNsN4Uh789PNLNxRS4DEsp7k37qeNg9mUXFyThUrt5vumE6nqk6r5 OMjFV+8yndOvkhrVKT0tSthLOjt0ibaUCZhode1lr5wHs4jYS8+5pjHu3qZJs
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0D1.000000005FC93FF2.00002A03; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 20:43:46 +0100
To: "Brotman, Alex" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 20:43:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Discussion - ARC/Extensible Reporting (Ticket #56)
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:44:10 -0000

On Thu 03/Dec/2020 19:54:51 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dmarc <> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 6:24 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Discussion - ARC/Extensible Reporting (Ticket #56)
>> On Wed 02/Dec/2020 20:46:54 +0100 Brotman, Alex wrote:
>>> While this ticket/enhancement specifically mentions ARC, I could
>>> perhaps see the usefulness in other places.  It seems like it would be
>>> more beneficial to create a method by which other documents could
>>> provide XML- based "extensions" to the report.  This would allow
>>> mechanisms relying on DMARC to independently define their reporting
>>> schema to be included in DMARC aggregate reports.  Alternately, we could
>>> focus specifically on ARC, and work to include that in the base XML.
>>> This means that any later reporting requirements could again require
>>> changes to the core drafts.>>>
>> Another possibility is for ARC to define its own report format.  Hijacking
>> rua= targets to send a different kind of report should be allowed.
>> Otherwise, we could define a new tag, e.g. rue= (e for Extension).>>
>> In either case, as we're introduce variations in aggregate report content,
>> we have to devise a method for determining what version/kind of report is 
>> attached to a given message.>>
> We could add an element called "<extensions>", and we allow ARC or whatever
> it may be to exist under that element.  The Aggregate Reporting document
> needs to specify that any extensions are expected to be proper XML, and if
> there are no extensions, an empty element is sufficient.  We could create a
> bit more structure as a requirement if we wanted:> 
> <extensions>
>    <extension name="arc" standard="ARC_DMARC_REPORTING_EXTENSION_DEFINITION">
>      ... (as defined in referenced standard)
>    </extension>
> </extensions>
> If a report parser doesn't know what ARC is (or any of the extensions), it could skip the processing.  I do understand this means that <extensions> element may break existing parsers, even when empty, though, I expect many of the things we're proposing may fracture the expected XML.

We can do a better job at producing aggregate reports with an automatically verifiable content.  For example, prepending stuff like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dmarc:feedback xmlns:xs=""
	xs:schemaLocation=" rua.xsd">

(Perhaps something better than "" for the version)

But then, would the <extensions> imply dmarc-xml grammar should be upgraded every time ARC (or whatever) is upgraded?

Separate reports sounds simpler.