On Thu 24/Dec/2020 19:55:07 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
On Thu 24/Dec/2020 03:39:03 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
I Believe I agree with the current version, but can someone post what we think is the final text?

See below, with the two changes mentioned before and Mr Copy Edit's minor tightening up which I hope are not controversial.

Ale said:
I posted it here:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting

Hold it. I don't recall that we agreed to break failure reports into a separate document.


The fact that draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-00 exists on IETF datatracker seems to confirm WG consensus. But see also:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2DsSazvE9QxFjVSeg_mdNlRMETM


It makes more work and I see no agreement to change anything beyond the
security paragraph.  In particular, we have nothing to offer on what one
might or might not redact.


I still think it'd be a good idea to mention RFC 6590...

Anyway, the change at hand arose from a ticket, as per Subject:. After a long discussion, the new paragraph was explicitly proposed for the Introduction of the separated document, where it is most effective. IMHO, Ned's wording —which you said to ship— is more comprehensive than the abbreviated version quoted below, hence preferable.

Why did you change your mind?


Best
Ale


Security considerations

Failure reports provide detailed information about the failure of a
single message or a group of similar messages failing for the same
reason. They are meant to aid domain owners to detect why failures
reported in aggregate form occurred. It is important to note these
reports can contain either the header or the entire content of a
failed message, which in turn may contain personally identifiable
information, which should be considered when deciding whether to
generate such reports.

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to