On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:20 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri 03/Dec/2021 19:38:26 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:40 PM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> last message for today: the "t" tag instead of "pct". > >> > >> That's the only part which breaks existing records. According to the > last > >> paragraph of this section, doing so requires v=DMARC2. > >> > > > > I'm not sure I agree with your assertion here. I'm assuming you're > > referring to this paragraph: > > > > Note that given the rules of the previous paragraph, addition of a > > new tag into the registered list of tags does not itself require a > > new version of DMARC to be generated (with a corresponding change to > > the "v" tag's value), but a change to any existing tags does require > > a new version of DMARC. > > > Exactly. > > > > I contend that introducing 't' to replace 'pct' is not a change to an > > existing tag but rather an addition of a new tag. > > > In that case, the definition of pct= must still appear in the spec. As > rfc7489 > is obsoleted, referencing it makes little sense. > Ale, While RFC7489 will be obsoleted, it did document several tags which are no longer considered valid. If the concern is that we will be forcing readers of the new RFC to chase through old documents to understand what 'pct' tag was defined, Appendix A.7 explains the pct tag, and its removal. I think that is the right place to place this info. tim >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
