On Thursday, August 18, 2022 10:57:16 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:57 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> > > wrote: > > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:34:47 AM EDT John R Levine wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > > I can't remember if this was discussed previously. I was just > > > > responding > > > > > > to the proposed change. > > > > > > Understood, but I am concerned that we are spinning our wheels on > > > changes > > > proposed by individuals that have no support from anyone else. It would > > > be nice if we could wrap up the work we've agreed to and ship our > > > documents. > > > > I agree. The one thing I think would be useful would be to move more of > > the > > text relating to failure reporting out of DMARCbis and into the failure > > reporting draft. > > > > I theory, I think mention of failure reporting in DMARCbis could (and > > probably > > should) be reduced to a small section with a reference to the failure > > reporting document. It's very much a niche capability and I think the > > less > > said about it in DMARCbis, the better. Many consumers of DMARCbis > > document > > will not care about it at all. > > > > If there's any interest in this, I can propose specifics. It looks to me > > like > > it's virtually all cut/paste. > > I'm not sure that the work you're proposing isn't already done in DMARCbis. > For example, section 7.4, Reporting, reads in its entirety "Discussion of > both aggregate and failure reporting have been moved to separate documents > dedicated to the topics." > > I'm curious to see the specifics you propose - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/
There are a few things: In 5.3, General Record Format, move the fo and ruf definitions. Unknown tags MUST be ignored, so there's no need to define all the tags in this document. This would have some knock on effects in 5.4, Formal Definition and 9.4, DMARC Tag Registry. 9.5, DMARC Report Format Registry, would move in its entirety. Given that we've removed the capability to specify alternate formats, perhaps it would be better to delete this registry entirely? Either way, it could do it from the other draft. The note at the end of 10.5, External Reporting Addresses would move. I'm not sure it's not better in the failure reporting draft regardless of the other changes. The examples in B.2.2 and B.2.3, regardless of this proposed change, should refer to the failure reporting draft (and would even more definitely need to with the proposed change). Given the rarity of their use, I think it's beneficial to streamline DMARCbis as much as we can. Maybe this only drops the page count by one or so, but every little bit helps. It's a long draft. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
