Barry Leiba wrote on 2021-05-06 16:16: > Chair weighing in, as chair: > > We're divided in the sense that there are some who want to add this > information, but as I see it the rough consensus is not divided: > - This is extra information that's being proposed... so, a new > feature. That requires rough consensus to add it. > - Serious privacy issues have been raised with respect to adding that > information. > - No refutation of those privacy issues has been given, and no > adequate mitigation has been proposed. The suggestion of requiring a > minimum level of aggregation is insufficient, as there's ample general > evidence that privacy leaks survive aggregation. > - We therefore do not have rough consensus to add this.
Allow me to ask for clarification. - "receiving_domains" has been proposed in #23 as new metadata. - "receiving_domains" is redundant to "envelope_to", which already exists in RFC 7489 and is being used in practice by a small portion of reporters. - Privacy concerns have been raised, which apply to both elements. - The proposed "receiving_domains" gets rejected. What happens to the existing "envelope_to"? Regards, Matt _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
