On 7/30/24 22:31, John R. Levine wrote: > Thanks for your note. I think we've addressed everything in the main > 7489bis but some of the stuff in the reporting docs looks like it still > needs to be fixed. > > If you're willing to futz with the markdown, pull requests with proposed > changes would be great.
Thank you for your encouragement. I've made my first pull request starting with the aggregate reporting draft. https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/pull/18 > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Daniel K. wrote: >> 1) Errata from RFC 7489 is not incorporated into the text. >> >> [...] >> >> Errata: 5365 (filename suffix), 5371 (GZIP RFC reference): >> Both seem to be uncontroversial and should be addressed in >> [I-D.ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting]. I've included a commit addressing this. >> Erratum 5440 (changing: "v=DMARC1" to "v=DMARC1;") Alex included some changes for this, already. >> Should the _report._dmarc value get its own ABNF with only rua/ruf tags? >> >> Right now I see this record referred to as a TXT RR: >> >> the DNS administrator for the Report Consumer will >> need to publish a TXT resource record at [...] with >> the value >> "v=DMARC1;". >> >> Maybe it could be referred to as a DMARC Report Apologies for the abrupt end in the middle of this sentence, I guess I was interrupted while writing. I think I meant it to continue like this: Maybe it could be referred to as a DMARC Reporting Authorization Record, as the allowed syntax is really a subset of the full DMARC syntax. v / rua / ruf Proposed ABNF: dmarc-reporting-auth-record = dmarc-version (dmarc-sep "rua=" dmarc-urilist) (dmarc-sep "ruf=" dmarc-urilist) [dmarc-sep] *WSP >> 2) Botched ABNF for 'ridtxt' in the txt version of the document. I've included a commit addressing this. >> 3) ABNF for 'ridtxt' is too strict I've included a commit addressing this. >> 4) This warning text is sometimes shown even if >> there's no need to wrap the command output: >> 5) Overlap in the examples of dmarcbis and failure-reporting >> 6) Inconsistent requirements for validating third party report consumers. >> 7) Formal definition I'll come back to these at a later time. >> 9) XSD Schema >> >> The IPAddress type has a mix of [A-Fa-f0-9] and [A-Fa-f\d] in the >> patterns. Use only one of them for consistency. Alex also addressed this already. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
