It appears that Olivier Hureau <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Hello, > >I am doing some research related to DMARC and I found some errors in the >RFC7489 and dmarcbis-07 for ABNF rules > >- dmarc-percent RFC7489 : >The rule 'dmarc-percent = "pct" *WSP "=" *WSP 1*3DIGIT' allow '999' as a value. >a correction could be : 'dmarc-percent = "pct" *WSP "=" *WSP ("100" / >1*2DIGIT)'
In practice, the code that parses DMARC just splits the input into xxx=yyy pairs of tag and value strings and checks the values semantically. So I don't see any point to changing the ABNF for this particular value. >- dmarc-record RFC7489 : >The rule 'dmarc-record = dmarc-version dmarc-sep > [dmarc-request] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-srequest] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-auri] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-furi] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-adkim] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-aspf] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-ainterval] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-fo] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-rfmt] > [dmarc-sep dmarc-percent] > [dmarc-sep]' >have dmarc-request as optional but in 6.3 it says that p is "required" That does look like a mistake. >'dmarc-record = dmarc-version dmarc-sep dmarc-request dmarc-sep *(dmarc-tag >dmarc-sep) That's also a mistake. The final semicolon is optional. Thanks for catching them. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
