Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) Failure Reporting
draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-25

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting and RFC 9991, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Christian Huitema for their multiple secdir reviews.

Section 7.3:  I agree with Mike Bishop - either define or replace the word 'defang'.  A non native English speaker might be confused. It could easily be replaced with 'URIs can be made harmless by substituting' or similar.

[Ballot comment]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-23

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 5
```
    when they will be sent, are defined by the "ruf" and "fo" tags as
    defined in Section 4.7 of [I-D.ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis].
```
Consider "provided by" to avoid using "defined by" twice?

### Section 2, paragraph 6
```
    Report generators MUST ensure not to flood report consumers with
    excessive reports, which would allow denial-of-service, see
    Section 8.1.
```
Is this precise enough to be a MUST? How would a peer determine if the generator
is violating this and how would they respond? I think the normative part is that
a generator MUST implement a rate-limit, and we recommend (non-2119) that it be
set to some reasonable value.

### Section 5.1, paragraph 2
```
    Reporters MAY rate limit the number of failure reports sent to any
```
Why MAY here, when it's MUST above?

### Section 7.3, paragraph 3
```
    *  defang URIs by substituting hxxp for http;
```
Is "defang" a defined term anywhere? If not, I'd consider spelling out what you
mean by this, presumably "Help prevent accidental access to potentially-malicious
URIs by..."

### Section 7.3, paragraph 2
```
    *  remove malicious attachments such as word documents or pdfs.
```
These examples may be overly specific; perhaps instead "attachments which could
embed malicious payload"?

### Missing references

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
`[CFWS]`, `[RFC5322]`.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 2, paragraph 7
```
-    excessive reports, which would allow denial-of-service, see
-                                                          ^
+    excessive reports, which would allow denial-of-service; see
+                                                          ^
```

#### Section 5.1, paragraph 1
```
-    Email streams carrying DMARC failure reports SHOULD be DMARC aligned.
-                                                                ^
+    Email streams carrying DMARC failure reports SHOULD be DMARC-aligned.
+                                                                ^
```

#### Section 7.3, paragraph 3
```
-    *  remove malicious attachments such as word documents or pdfs.
-                                            ^                ^^^
+    *  remove malicious attachments such as Word documents or PDFs.
+                                            ^                ^^^
```

[Ballot comment]
One small note: while it is obvious what is meant with "defang URIs by substituting hxxp for http;" I think it should be "defang URIs by substituting http for hxxp;". But perhaps this can be avoided using something like "defang URI's by modifying http to hxxp". Note that this might not be enough - mail readers can be smart and parse www.example.com without having a http(s) prefix to present it to the user as well. I am not sure how to solve this generically though.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Steven & Alessandro,

Thanks for the effort put into this specification. Also, congrats to the WG for submit document to the IESG no later than six months from working group formation per the charter ;-)

Other than the abstract should mention both updated and obsoleted RFCs, I have only very few nits that I will sent in a PR for authors convenience.

Cheers,
Med

Request for IETF Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tim Wicinski. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-20. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Feedback Report Header Fields registry in the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format (MARF) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters/

the existing registration for:

Field Name: Identity-Alignment
Description: indicates whether the message about which a report is being generated had any identifiers in alignment as defined in [RFC7489]

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

Request for IETF Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Christian Huitema. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-11-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andy@hxr.us, barryleiba@computer.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, dmarc@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) Failure Reporting) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting & Conformance WG (dmarc) to consider the following document: -
'Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
  (DMARC) Failure Reporting'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-11-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
  (DMARC) is a mechanism by which a Domain Owner can request feedback
  about email messages using their domain in the From: address field.
  This document describes "failure reports," or "failed message
  reports", which provide details about individual messages that failed
  to authenticate according to the DMARC mechanism.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is general concurrence in the WG that this document is ready to proceed.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

A consensus call had to be made about proceeding at all, or that there was value in publishing this.
The decision was made to continue.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Implementations exist.  OpenDKIM is one of them; the rest are commercial.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No special reviews are required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A; no YANG here.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No automated checks were done.  There's a small amount of ABNF that was validated manually.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No subsequent reviews from the ART list are mandated.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  The datatracker metadata look right.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes; no outstanding IPR claims were identified by either author.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Nothing outstanding.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References look right.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A; everything is public.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The sole IANA action requested is trivial and appears to be well formed.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are created by this document.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is general concurrence in the WG that this document is ready to proceed.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

A consensus call had to be made about proceeding at all, or that there was value in publishing this.
The decision was made to continue.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Implementations exist.  OpenDKIM is one of them; the rest are commercial.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No special reviews are required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A; no YANG here.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No automated checks were done.  There's a small amount of ABNF that was validated manually.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No subsequent reviews from the ART list are mandated.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  The datatracker metadata look right.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes; no outstanding IPR claims were identified by either author.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Nothing outstanding.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References look right.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A; everything is public.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The sole IANA action requested is trivial and appears to be well formed.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are created by this document.