On 11/21/24 12:41, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:48 PM Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:* Section 2.6.2 requires gzip. What about other methods like zstd which can provide better compression? This is the first time that has been asked. I suppose it could be changed, though, it seems as though it would break existing report ingestion. Are zipped reports large enough to benefit?The reason I bring it up is because compression mechanisms more modern than gzip, such as Brotli and zstd, have been published as RFCs since RFC 7489, so I wonder if there would be any advantage to allowing those. If there's never been any need and we're satisfied with gzip, that's fine. I just figured I'd ask the question.
I'd be happy not to lock everything into gzip for the next X years, but can we allow flexibility without creating an issue for existing code? We could add something like (completely off-the-cuff) "+zstd" or "+brotli" at the end of the "rua=" value, and if neither of those are present you stick to gzip?
That'd have to go into the DMARCbis draft with the notation, allowed values, and RFC references... Worth the effort?
--S.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
