Ah, I see. The Mail Receiver, after preparing a report, **MUST** evaluate the provided reporting URIs (See [@!I-D.ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis]) in the order given. If any of the URIs are malformed, they SHOULD be ignored. An attempt **MUST** be made to deliver an aggregate report to every remaining URI, up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs.
Is that better? I made that a SHOULD as I’ve been told there are some flexible reporting systems that ignore some versions of “malformed”. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast From: Orie <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 2:07 PM To: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Orie Steele's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29: (with COMMENT) My point is that I don't understand what "remaining" means in Section 3. 5. https: //author-tools. ietf. org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29&difftype=--hwdiff My point is that I don't understand what "remaining" means in Section 3.5. https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29&difftype=--hwdiff<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29&difftype=--hwdiff__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!FEyIa2sdZXNQHYWbkoTEs6Sw0G6iNqX100H5bWU8k8BkexuN1htHlkAGBefl93LRdBk5hR2WnAG7HNSDaQ$> ``` The Mail Receiver, after preparing a report, MUST evaluate the provided reporting URIs (See [I-D.ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis]) in the order given. ... An attempt MUST be made to deliver an aggregate report to every remaining URI, up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs. ``` On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 12:45 PM Brotman, Alex <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I'm not sure I understand your comment below. Are you commenting on the " up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs" ? That suggests that a message receiver (report generator, not report receiver) may have a limit on the number of URIs they're willing to send reports to. If that's your nit, I can make that more clear. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Orie Steele via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 9:46 AM > To: The IESG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Orie Steele's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting- > 29: (with COMMENT) > > Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/state<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/state> > ments/handling-ballot- > positions/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BuRISkuxX4W9qRx2GroqLwMI0nyMJzcXyAQnH > y3LhLzNiTnk6hqDlEiCFKmWWUf7UYdUVhZWDzITjSZ1E_I$ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-> > dmarc-aggregate- > reporting/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BuRISkuxX4W9qRx2GroqLwMI0nyMJzcXyAQnH > y3LhLzNiTnk6hqDlEiCFKmWWUf7UYdUVhZWDzITA-64-NQ$ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for addressing my comments in -29. > > ### Nits > > In -29, the word remaining here is perhaps no longer needed: > > ``` > An attempt MUST be made to deliver an aggregate report to > every remaining URI, up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs. > ``` > > I think the intended behavior with the changes from -29 is to attempt to > deliver to all URIs. > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
