On 12/9/24 17:06, John R Levine wrote:
Sorry, I was wrong there. Of course we need updated XML if only to add
the flag for whether you did a tree walk.
Coincidentally, this new element, "discovery_method" is optional in the
new schema.
The same applies to the new "testing", it's optional in the schema.
I thought it strange, but chalked it up to limited backwards
compatibility, or some such when I read it the first time.
Reading it through again, I think those should not be optional, those
details are an important part of this iteration of the specification,
and needs to be in the reports.
Once again, we are not the Network Police. If we make the fields
mandatory, that means that reports that are missing them but are otherwise
OK are ill formed and should presumably be discarded. Why would that be a
good idea?
R"s,
John
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org