Any comments on the alteration for the "ridtxt" that Daniel has included? There was a fair bit of back and forth when we altered that previously.
Specifically: https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/pull/18/commits/21aa5a8303b65e3725d3dc10e07c4b05c02282a7 -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 7:22 AM > To: Daniel K. <[email protected]>; John R. Levine <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Review of the dmarc draft documents > > On Fri 30/Aug/2024 12:58:55 +0200 Daniel K. wrote: > > On 8/30/24 10:12, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> I agree on most changes, possibly except that 05.06.07.08 seems to me > >> an acceptable IPv4 expression, > > > > Yeah, but if we allow leading zeroes, 005.006.007.008 should also be > > allowed, but the current regex does not allow it. > > > > We should at least go one way or the other. > > > > If double leading zeroes should be allowed, then substitute "1?\d?\d" > > with "[01]?\d?\d" instead. > > > That looks better. > > > >> and perhaps the obsolescence note is required (?) > > > > There is a similar note in the abstract of the dmarcbis draft, but not > > in the failure-reporting draft. > > > Should I add one? The I-D expires next September... > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
