The way ABNF is defined, string literals are case insensitive, but if they're spelled out with individual hex values, then only those specific values are acceptable (I.e., they're case sensitive). Up to and including –04, the ABNF says everything is case-sensitive, while the text says otherwise. We'll fix that in –05.
The obvious exception is the interpretation of a URI, but that's a special case because the interpretation is outside of DMARC itself. So "v=dmarc1" is wrong, "v=DMARC1" is right; meanwhile, "P=rEjEcT" should be valid but currently isn't'. -MSK From: Alexey Nezhdanov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, April 4, 2014 12:57 AM To: Murray Kucherawy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Tim Draegen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] An error in formal protocol definition (ABNF) 1) Apparently I was following the bad link that was leading to the early draft. I can see now that the most recent draft doesn't have this error. Sorry for that. The link is on this page: https://support.google.com/a/answer/2466563?hl=en&ref_topic=2759254<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://support.google.com/a/answer/2466563?hl%3Den%26ref_topic%3D2759254&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=aZ0xRzXh0AB20HBCmRph%2Bg%3D%3D%0A&m=jkOKm8bGq54cpV30h0%2BmXN4fs%2BCn%2FhCr4miLlV0tXWs%3D%0A&s=6f2bdd1f1acc7441b0c926d7bdc79cd9780d1e6c8cf2e00beb4111018b6aa689> ("DMARC Tag Registry"). I can file a ticket to have this fixed, but what would be the best link for this purpose (link with #anchor to have the page scrolled to the tags table)? 2) Re: case sensitivity. Sorry, I did not understand the answer. The is it case sensitive (v=DMARC1; p=...) or insensitive(v=dmarc1; P=...) ? Best regards, Alexey Nezhdanov 2014-04-03 21:19 GMT+02:00 Murray Kucherawy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: This was corrected a while ago (March 13th in the git repository). The –04 version that's now current has it right. -MSK From: Tim Draegen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:09 AM To: Alexey Nezhdanov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] An error in formal protocol definition (ABNF) Hi Alexey, You've found a recently-introduced bug. Unfortunately, the recent change to make the ABNF a bit more strict clashes with some left-over text "Tag and value matching is case-insensitive." at the end of section 5.3. This should be correctly ASAP, as it's not good. -= Tim On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Alexey Nezhdanov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello. I am working on a web app that validates DMARC TXT records and noticed a possible error in formal spec: dmarc-version = %x76 *WSP "=" %x44.4d.41.52.43 I believe, it should be dmarc-version = %x76 *WSP "=" %x44.4d.41.52.43.31 i.e. it is 'v=DMARC' vs 'v=DMARC1' Also, it seems that the string is case-sensitive, but just to double check - is that really so? Best regards, Alexey Nezhdanov -- If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else (it may contain confidential or privileged information), please erase all copies of it, including all attachments, and please let the sender know it went to the wrong person. "Google Switzerland GmbH Brandschenkestrasse 110, Zurich, Switzerland 8002 Zurich Identifikationsnummer: CH-020.4.028.116-1"
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
