It does look like the ABNF should be changed to allow "0" or "1" to be
mixed with "d" and "s", though I do think that "0" and "1" are
mutually exclusive with each other.

I also think we should change the descriptions of "0" and "1" to be
worded the same way, unless I'm misunderstanding them.  It seems that
the two descriptions should differ only in the word "all" for "0" and
"any" for "1".  I don't care which description is used for both, but I
think they should be the same.  Otherwise, it will always be unclear
whether there's meant to be some subtle distinction that the reader
might be missing.

Barry

On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 2:46 PM Daniel K. <dan...@vendo.no> wrote:
>
> The definition of the "fo" tag in the draft, says in part:
>
>   This tag can include one or more of the values shown here;
>   if more than one value is assigned to the tag, the list of
>   values should be separated by colons (e.g., fo=0:d).
>
> However, the ABNF text:
>
>      dmarc-fo      = "0" / "1" / "d" / "s" / "d:s" / "s:d"
>
> does not include the value given in the example.
>
>
> I don't immediately see anything wrong with "0:d" as a value for the tag.
>
>
> Daniel K.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to