Alex -
Good catch... and yeah, if the DMARC-bis version won't be incremented, I agree
that the "version" field in the RUA should remain "1" for both RFC7489 and
DMARC-bis so there's no disconnect in meaning of "version".
What about adding a field that'd expressly identifies which DMARC record
discovery mechanism was used?
That way a report analyst would be able to handle differences in results from
different evaluators (some using the RFC7489 "hop", and others using the -bis
"tree walk") for the same set of published policies.
Perhaps something like:
<!-- The mechanism used for DMARC record discovery. -->
<xs:element name="discovery_mechanism" type="xs:string"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
The excepted values being the enumerated discovery mechanisms (e.g. something
like "hop", "treewalk").
Thoughts?
- Trent
From: dmarc <[email protected]> on behalf of "Brotman, Alex"
<[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:25 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Version in aggregate report
While reviewing something in the aggregate doc, I came across this bit in the
XML specification. Unless I've missed something, we're not incrementing the
version in the DMARC DNS record. <!-- The version declared in the DMARC record
found.
While reviewing something in the aggregate doc, I came across this bit in the
XML specification. Unless I've missed something, we're not incrementing the
version in the DMARC DNS record.
<!-- The version declared in the DMARC record found. -->
<xs:element name="version_published" type="xs:decimal"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
So, if we're not changing that DNS record, obviously this "version" string has
less meaning. The prose describing the field says this would be "1" or "2".
If we're going to stick to not incrementing the version string, I need to
update this to reflect that. Not a horrible task, just wanted to be clear
before I make work for myself.
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!ORgEfCBsr282Fw!pZ3zknT6evZJHIUrrdNBtZV32p6hgQXznrYrM80i5YsP-PzFnI7TEG6znII6BZlUN43ij3wR65B1HC-LbYgoOeD_6-6G0HzY$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!ORgEfCBsr282Fw!pZ3zknT6evZJHIUrrdNBtZV32p6hgQXznrYrM80i5YsP-PzFnI7TEG6znII6BZlUN43ij3wR65B1HC-LbYgoOeD_6-6G0HzY$>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
