Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-20
review-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-20-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2025-11-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-11-28
Requested 2025-11-19
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Steven M Jones , Alessandro Vesely
I-D last updated 2026-05-19 (Latest revision 2026-04-18)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -20 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -20 by Marco Tiloca (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -20 by Ines Robles (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -20 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -23 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/aEqeuIWZA35O5bxYVwE7VEopCk4
Reviewed revision 20 (document currently at 25)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-11-28
review-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-20-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2025-11-28-00
Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
received.

**Document**: draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting

**Reviewer**: Tim Wicinski

**Review Date**: 2025-11-28

**Intended Status**: Standards Track

---

## **Summary**

This document describes "failure reports," which provide details about
individual messages that failed to authenticate according to the DMARC
mechanism.

The document is ready with some minor nits.

The IDNits that Marco Tiloca raised in the ARTART review need to  be addressed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-20-artart-lc-tiloca-2025-11-26/

The document describes the operational mechanisms, however, in order to deploy
the failure reports requires reading of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis, but both
portions are well written.

---

## **Minor Issues**

## Terminology

The Terminology section references DMARC-bis document, which is useful.  But
there are a number of definitions in "Reporting Format Update" section that
mentions looking in RFC6591.  I would suggest you also add this reference to
the Terminology Section.

---

## **Nits**

Optional editorial suggestions (e.g., acronym expansions or grammar fixes).

- **Example**:

 > *Abstract*: Expand "NFV" on first use.

 > Section 3.1: "it’s" -> "its".*

Wording Nit:

### Introduction

s/can use to/can be used/

### IANA Considerations

s/""Messaging Abuse Reporting Format"/"Messaging Abuse Reporting Format"/