The top level "version" element is required by the XSD in RFC 7489, but not everyone got the memo and only about 40% of the reports I've received has it in the XML data.
In an earlier release of the aggregate reporting draft, the XSD was changed to make "version" optional. I searched the list archives around the time of the change, but did not find anything about it, and the commit message was also a bit terse. Also, "version" is not described in the draft text at all, and I think some changes should be made to address it. Please help me with some background to find out what should actually be done or changed. 1&1, the only ones I know about to implement this draft adds the "version" element with value "1.0" The draft now specifies an xml namespace to be used for the feedback XML reports; urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dmarc-2.0 Here we allude to dmarc-2, which did not come to pass, as the version number did not need to be increased. How is versioning supposed to work going forward? Will the XML namespace need to be changed on update? In that case, will the change of namespace identifier be enough to distinguish between the versions? Should we change "version" back to be a mandatory element and add text similar to the text in RFC 7489: The "version" for reports generated per this specification MUST be the value 1.0. or, if namespace must be updated, abolish the "version" element altogether? Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
