Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:21 AM wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, > Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. > > Title : DMARC Aggregate Reporting > Author : Alex Brotman > Filename: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt > Pages : 23 > Date: 2021-04-23 > > Abstract: >DMARC allows for domain holders to request aggregate reports from >receivers. This report is an XML document, and contains extensible >elements that allow for other types of data to be specified later. >The aggregate reports can be submitted to the domain holder's >specified destination as supported by the receiver. > >This document (along with others) obsoletes RFC7489. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ > [...] > I've done only a cursory review so far. (This is *not* an official AD review; I'm just participating here.) First, thanks for the work put into this. It was clearly not a trivial undertaking. Two quick comments, with something more detailed to follow: RFC2119 used to be all there was to BCP 14, but BCP 14 now includes RFC 8174, which changed the boilerplate you need to include if you want to use MUSTard language in IETF documents. Please update the references and boilerplate accordingly. You'll find it in RFC 8174 itself. Second, a pet peeve of mine when reviewing documents across all areas (and you can thank Pete Resnick for this part of my personality): There are many "naked" SHOULDs in here. By that, I mean: "SHOULD [NOT]" presents the implementer with advice but also a choice; an implementation is technically compliant if it doesn't do what the SHOULD [NOT] says. It strengthens the document to provide the reader with some guidance as to when one might make the informed decision to choose not to follow that advice; or, perhaps more importantly, the SHOULD [NOT] feels like it's dangling or unjustified without such guidance. For instance, the first SHOULD in this draft is this one: A single report SHOULD contain data for one policy configuration. Why might an implementer not do this? If there's no good answer to this question, maybe this ought to be a MUST or a MAY, not a SHOULD. Sometimes the answer here is backward compatibility. Maybe you really want this to be a MUST, but existing implementations didn't do it, so to grandfather them in, you made it a SHOULD. In such cases, I think you should either say this, or say something like new implementations MUST do this, but acknowledge that legacy implementations might not comply, and consumers need to be prepared to deal with that. Also worth considering: You can be normative without saying MUST. Continuing with this example, you could just as easily say: "A single report contains data for exactly one policy configuration." That's normative without using any BCP 14 language. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
On 5/7/2021 2:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Yeah, but it also means the tools team should probably arrange that announcements of new I-Ds don't use the dead URLs. where's the fun in that? d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crock...@redcross.org ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 1:25 PM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >I think it's an IETF tools problem. The URL is theirs, not yours. > > tools.ietf.org is running on fumes and will be going away. The > htmlized version of the draft on the datatracker works: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 > Yeah, but it also means the tools team should probably arrange that announcements of new I-Ds don't use the dead URLs. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I think it's an IETF tools problem. The URL is theirs, not yours. tools.ietf.org is running on fumes and will be going away. The htmlized version of the draft on the datatracker works: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
I think it's an IETF tools problem. The URL is theirs, not yours. On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:48 AM Brotman, Alex wrote: > I sent this over to support the other day, and it was forwarded to > operations. > > > > -- > > Alex Brotman > > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > > Comcast > > > > *From:* Murray S. Kucherawy > *Sent:* Monday, May 3, 2021 8:03 PM > *To:* Brotman, Alex > *Cc:* Alessandro Vesely ; IETF DMARC WG > *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt > > > > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:49 AM Brotman, Alex 40comcast@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > I apologize, corporate mail gateway does that (I've asked them to exempt > ietf.org > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ietf.org__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VV5FMHzQ9IRbWwvLWi6noKzvhvvOVr5GK-OmVlF7Blvv8D0DEjx3PyHIAjwg6Y97QeLs$> > now). The links have an expiration of a few days. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VV5FMHzQ9IRbWwvLWi6noKzvhvvOVr5GK-OmVlF7Blvv8D0DEjx3PyHIAjwg6bqFdLuE$> > > > > One of the URLs that came from the datatracker was: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VV5FMHzQ9IRbWwvLWi6noKzvhvvOVr5GK-OmVlF7Blvv8D0DEjx3PyHIAjwg6Ys_rsaT$> > > > > It appears to return blank for me as well. > > > > -MSK > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
I sent this over to support the other day, and it was forwarded to operations. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast From: Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 8:03 PM To: Brotman, Alex Cc: Alessandro Vesely ; IETF DMARC WG Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:49 AM Brotman, Alex mailto:40comcast@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: I apologize, corporate mail gateway does that (I've asked them to exempt ietf.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ietf.org__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VV5FMHzQ9IRbWwvLWi6noKzvhvvOVr5GK-OmVlF7Blvv8D0DEjx3PyHIAjwg6Y97QeLs$> now). The links have an expiration of a few days. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VV5FMHzQ9IRbWwvLWi6noKzvhvvOVr5GK-OmVlF7Blvv8D0DEjx3PyHIAjwg6bqFdLuE$> One of the URLs that came from the datatracker was: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VV5FMHzQ9IRbWwvLWi6noKzvhvvOVr5GK-OmVlF7Blvv8D0DEjx3PyHIAjwg6Ys_rsaT$> It appears to return blank for me as well. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:49 AM Brotman, Alex wrote: > I apologize, corporate mail gateway does that (I've asked them to exempt > ietf.org now). The links have an expiration of a few days. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ > One of the URLs that came from the datatracker was: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 It appears to return blank for me as well. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
I apologize, corporate mail gateway does that (I've asked them to exempt ietf.org now). The links have an expiration of a few days. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -Original Message- > From: dmarc On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 1:55 PM > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt > > Strange... > > On Fri 23/Apr/2021 20:21:00 +0200 internet-drafts wrote: > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc- > aggregate-reporting-02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VLHh- > dyyGaHUPgaAFaPg3qsb8PlhOPrpMNkFUCu3qtCLqzx2JUZXysgpDqBD4n1FbKlO$ > > > This arrives empty: > > ale@pcale:~/tmp$ curl > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc- > aggregate-reporting-02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VLHh- > dyyGaHUPgaAFaPg3qsb8PlhOPrpMNkFUCu3qtCLqzx2JUZXysgpDqBD4n1FbKlO$ > | wc >% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time > Current > Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed >0 00 00 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- > 0 >0 0 0 > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- > dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!VLHh- > dyyGaHUPgaAFaPg3qsb8PlhOPrpMNkFUCu3qtCLqzx2JUZXysgpDqBD4t4SW-BT$ > > > This looks like the traditional htmlized I-D that was missing in the previous > link. > > How come? > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;! > !CQl3mcHX2A!VLHh- > dyyGaHUPgaAFaPg3qsb8PlhOPrpMNkFUCu3qtCLqzx2JUZXysgpDqBD4vAtUgBj$ ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
Strange... On Fri 23/Apr/2021 20:21:00 +0200 internet-drafts wrote: There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 This arrives empty: ale@pcale:~/tmp$ curl https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02| wc % Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed 0 00 00 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 0 0 0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 This looks like the traditional htmlized I-D that was missing in the previous link. How come? Best Ale -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
Hello folks, Below you'll see the details relating to the most recent iteration of the aggregate reporting document. I attempted to address as many tickets as I thought feasible. I would probably suggest that the core of changes were relating to explaining more about the format, more properly defining the report format, and extensions. There are a few other items that may need resolved, depending on feedback from these alterations. Thank you for your feedback, and happy reading! https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -Original Message- > From: dmarc On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 2:21 PM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, > Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. > > Title : DMARC Aggregate Reporting > Author : Alex Brotman > Filename: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt > Pages : 23 > Date: 2021-04-23 > > Abstract: >DMARC allows for domain holders to request aggregate reports from >receivers. This report is an XML document, and contains extensible >elements that allow for other types of data to be specified later. >The aggregate reports can be submitted to the domain holder's >specified destination as supported by the receiver. > >This document (along with others) obsoletes RFC7489. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc- > aggregate- > reporting/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!XYGoVpJyLMjJvBfT6HfI7rp_pBZainnzqhXO4GaZaW > gQDB55FiuC8137pI2qMKu6L5N_$ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc- > aggregate-reporting- > 02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!XYGoVpJyLMjJvBfT6HfI7rp_pBZainnzqhXO4GaZaWgQDB55 > FiuC8137pI2qMGEpytDa$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- > dmarc-aggregate-reporting- > 02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!XYGoVpJyLMjJvBfT6HfI7rp_pBZainnzqhXO4GaZaWgQDB55 > FiuC8137pI2qMMR-T_gY$ > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf- > dmarc-aggregate-reporting- > 02__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!XYGoVpJyLMjJvBfT6HfI7rp_pBZainnzqhXO4GaZaWgQDB55 > FiuC8137pI2qMJZqLFqL$ > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet- > drafts/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!XYGoVpJyLMjJvBfT6HfI7rp_pBZainnzqhXO4GaZaWgQD > B55FiuC8137pI2qMJhtlMe4$ > > > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;! > !CQl3mcHX2A!XYGoVpJyLMjJvBfT6HfI7rp_pBZainnzqhXO4GaZaWgQDB55FiuC81 > 37pI2qMMU63FiT$ ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
[dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF. Title : DMARC Aggregate Reporting Author : Alex Brotman Filename: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02.txt Pages : 23 Date: 2021-04-23 Abstract: DMARC allows for domain holders to request aggregate reports from receivers. This report is an XML document, and contains extensible elements that allow for other types of data to be specified later. The aggregate reports can be submitted to the domain holder's specified destination as supported by the receiver. This document (along with others) obsoletes RFC7489. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
