On Wed 15/Jan/2025 22:52:27 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> said:
Hello folks,
Ale has submitted a PR that (sort of) re-opens a previous PR. There wasn't a
consensus last time, so hoping we can have some
discussion on this one.
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/pull/31
I never meant to reopen /27, also because of the changes committed meanwhile.
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/pull/27
There was more language in the first PR. The first PR suggested that the
report generator create a report when the policy change was
detected. The second is a bit more terse, and changes the focus of the change.
[...]
People have been sending aggregate reports for over a decade, so anyone who
receives reports has already figured out how to handle the way they arrive now.
I don't expect anyone to change their sending schedules so let's just leave it alone.
Correct. Yet, there will be newcomers.
The suggestion to try and sync reports when the policy changes is completely
impractical for many reasons even if it were useful, which I do not think it
would be, so I hope that's off the table.
I agree it's impractical. The idea with the old PR was, since 7489 allowed it,
to keep allowing it in case someone had implemented it that way.
Note that the second option in Section 2.3, to publish separate reports for the
same period, is as much impractical as the excluded third option.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
