>> dmarc-version = "v" equals %s"DMARC1 > I believe the "%s" should be dropped
'DMARC1' is case-sensitive in 7489. Either we keep the "%s" or we go back to 7489 version : "%x44 %x4d %x41 %x52 %x43 %x31" > I think it should be %x20-3A / %x3C-7E Agreed. I would also add comment about the dmarc-fo ABNF : dmarc-fo = "0" / "1" / "d" / "s" / "d:s" / "s:d" The FO paragraph ( [ https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30.html#name-general-record-format | https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30.html#name-general-record-format ] ) explicitly states that there exist 3 kinds of failure reports : - DMARC failure report. - DKIM failure report. - SPF failure report. However, with the current ABNF, we could only ask for "DMARC failure report" or ("DKIM failure report" and/or "SPF failure report") Shouldn't we have an ANBF rule with all the possible permutations or a more generic one such as : dmarc-fo = dmarc-fo-value *(":" dmarc-fo-value) dmarc-fo-value = "0" / "1" / "d" / "s" Olivier De: "Tim Wicinski" <[email protected]> À: "IETF DMARC WG" <[email protected]> Envoyé: Dimanche 10 Mars 2024 01:00:33 Objet: [dmarc-ietf] picking nits with the ABNF Just picking over the ABNF with my checks, some Qs dmarc-version = "v" equals %s"DMARC1 I believe the "%s" should be dropped BQ_BEGIN dmarc-value = %x20-3A | %x3C-7E BQ_END I think it should be %x20-3A / %x3C-7E and now just something suggested. The comments for URI read like this ; "URI" is imported from [RFC3986]; commas ; (ASCII 0x2C) and exclamation points ; (ASCII 0x21) MUST be encoded Could they be rewritten for readability ; "URI" is imported from [RFC3986] ; ; (ASCII 0x2C) commas and ; (ASCII 0x21) exclamation points ; MUST be encoded gladly tell me i'm too obsessive thanks tim _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
