On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, Brotman, Alex wrote:
Did we end up with proposed language/alternations?
I just made a pull request for the IP address. pointing to the IP address
syntax in RFC 3986. It says nothing about what the IP address is supposed
to mean. We've gotten by without it for a decade and I don't think we
need it now.
________________________________________
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]
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
