I think it should be handled as HFDU, and John should open an issue for it on the bis doc. The working group needs to decide what the right ABNF should be.
Barry On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 8:51 AM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Can I get a bit more clarity on what should happen with this one. > > Eliot > > On 21.08.22 17:06, John Levine wrote: > > I happen to have a folder with 300,000 reports and took a look. Reporters > > can be pretty > > random about what they do. > > > > Comcast and Yahoo put angle brackets around the report ID but Google and > > Microsoft don't and > > nobody else does as far as I can see, so I would change the last line of > > the ABNF to: > > > > 1*FWS dot-atom-text ; from RFC 5322 > > > > or I suppose we could make them optional > > > > 1*FWS [%x3c] dot-atom-text [%x3e] ; from RFC 5322 > > > > It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) > > <[email protected]> said: > >> -=-=-=-=-=- > >> > >> Dear Authors and DMARC group, > >> > >> In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is > >> that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in > >> the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My logic is that > >> running code in the wild should trump whatever is in the spec. Could > >> people please go over the ABNF with a fine tooth comb? > >> > >> Eliot > >> > >> * > >> * > >> > >> *Status: Reported > >> Type: Technical > >> Publication Format(s) : TEXT* > >> Reported By: Kaspar Etter > >> Date Reported: 2021-03-15 > >> > >> Section 7.2.1.1. says: > >> > >> dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS ; "Report" > >> %x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS ; "Domain:" > >> domain-name 1*FWS ; from RFC 6376 > >> %x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:" > >> 1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS > >> %x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:" > >> msg-id ; from RFC 5322 > >> > >> It should say: > >> > >> dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS ; "Report" > >> %x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS ; "Domain:" > >> domain-name 1*FWS ; from RFC 6376 > >> %x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:" > >> 1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS > >> %x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:" > >> 1*FWS %x3c dot-atom-text %x3e ; from RFC 5322 > >> > >> Notes: > >> > >> According to RFC 5322, msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" > >> [CFWS]. The example given in Section 7.2.1.1. (<2002.02.15.1>) does not > >> adhere to this and neither do reports in the wild. Instead of referring > >> to the msg-id ABNF, I suggest that we refer to the dot-atom-text ABNF > >> and include "<" and ">" as ASCII characters. This also has the advantage > >> of getting rid of CFWS. According to RFC 5322, "comments may be included > >> in structured field bodies" but "Subject" is not a structured header field. > >> > >> -=-=-=-=-=- > >> [Alternative: text/html] > >> -=-=-=-=-=- > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
