On Friday, May 15, 2020 2:26:30 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote: > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/49 > > The penultimate paragraph of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-6.3 > states: > > the "v" and "p" tags MUST be present and MUST > appear in that order. > > While the v= tag pretty universally appears first, the p= tag does not in > many records, and no implementation appears to care. > > The v= tag must appear first, or the policy discovery mechanism as defined > in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489#section-6.6.3 would break. > > But there doesn't appear to be any real reason to keep the normative > requirement that the p= tag MUST be second in the record after the v= tag, > nor does this requirement seem to have any impact on interoperability or > general record parsing in theory or in practice. > > Should we remove this normative requirement?
Section 6.6.3, step 6, sub-step 1 already says: > 1. if a "rua" tag is present and contains at least one > syntactically valid reporting URI, the Mail Receiver SHOULD > act as if a record containing a valid "v" tag and "p=none" > was retrieved, and continue processing; I don't see a problem with changing the MUST for p= to SHOULD and adding a MUST p= or rua=. That's consistent with what we already tell receivers they SHOULD do. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
