Did we end up with proposed language/alternations? -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast
________________________________________ From: John R Levine <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 2:27 PM To: Barry Leiba; Daniel K. Cc: [email protected] Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Update of IPv6 regular expressions [was: DMARC Aggregate PR 19] On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> The value in source_ip SHOULD either be a globally >>>> routable IPv4 unicast address in the dotted-decimal >>>> format, or a globally routable IPv6 Global Unicast >>>> address in the canonical textual representation format; >>>> see RFC 5952 for details. Correction, the format for IP addresses is in RFC 3986, section 3.2.2. As we've previously explained, the non-normative suggestions in 5952 are not relevant here. R's, John >>> >>> That's OK with me with the usual caveat that you need to say why it's >>> SHOULD and not MUST. >> >> Thanks, this is not something that needs to be written together with the >> above proposed text, is it? It just needs to be mentioned on this list. >> >> I don't think we can or should enumerate in the text the things we can >> currently think of as valid SHOULD exceptions, because suddenly there >> might be others. > > We don't need to be exhaustive, but we do need to give some guidance. > > Barry _______________________________________________ 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]
