On Thu 12/Aug/2021 22:26:57 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6
Folks,
I'd like to get a bit of feedback on this one. I realized I'd changed this to a SHOULD, which doesn't really
address the "fuzzy" complaint. Seems like the proper thing to do is make this a MUST, though I'd
be interested in opposing thoughts. Instead of "The filename SHOULD be constructed using the following
ABNF:", it would be convert to a "MUST be constructed".
I'd raise to MUST the media type, but leave the filename at SHOULD.
The MUST can be limited to the components, so that the same content
results in identical filenames.
I'm not sure the filename is required for interoperability. Do report
consumers rely on the filename or on the values contained in it? What
do they trust if they differ? (Do they even compare them?)
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
