Hi,
I've been reading over the DMARC Aggregate Reporting draft and have
some feedback on the schema and sample report.
* The ActionDispositionType type definition in the schema is missing a
closing </xs:simpleType> tag
* The schema has the DMARC report version element (<version>)
specified immediately under the <feedback> root element and not under
<report_metadata> as stated in section 2.1
* The draft states that <policy_published> has mandatory fields
domain, p, and sp, and optional fields fo, adkim, aspf, and testing.
The schema for PolicyPublishedType has mandatory fields domain and
version_published, with all other fields optional. Should
version_published be mandatory or optional?
* The schema for IdentifierType has header_from and envelope_from as
mandatory fields, and envelope_to as an optional field. The sample
report includes only header_from. The draft text in section 2.1 says
"In most cases, this will be a header_from element, which will contain
the 5322.From domain from the message". Is it the intention of the
draft that envelope_to should be mandatory?
* The schema for SPFAuthResultType has scope (mfrom/helo) as a
mandatory attribute but the sample report does not include a scope
section. Should the SPF scope be a mandatory field?
* The schema does not currently permit report extensions as described
in the draft (section 4). I am not sure if it is possible to define a
schema allowing an arbitrary element name with a required definition
attribute (pointing to the extension spec).
As an alternative, would it be better to have a standard element
name representing an arbitrary extension, with an attribute (even just
the definition URI) to identify the specific extension in use? E.g.
<extensions>
<extension definition="https://www.example.com/dmarc-extension/0.1";>
...
</extension>
</extensions>
* Lastly, the draft states that reports have two primary sections, one
with descriptive information and the other with row-data for the
report. The "informative" section is broken into two sub-sections,
which are report_metadata and policy_published. Would it perhaps be
clearer to say that there are three main sections rather than two?
report_metadata and policy_published are subsections of the main
feedback element along with the record elements holding the row data.
The schema is clear in this instance, I just wondered if the wording
in the draft might be improved.
Regards,
Richard
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
