The prose references RFC 8601, 2.7.2 as authoritative for result values for spf:
For the "spf" element, the "result" element MUST contain a lower-case string where the value is one of the results defined in [RFC8601] Section 2.7.2 but the XSD references RFC 7208 I was tempted to just update it, but 8601 allows "policy" as a valid value, so I ask: Should I just add it, like below? (neutral is reordered to be in the same order as in the table in RFC 8601.) Should we get rid of the TempError and PermError comments at the same time, or are they relevant? Or, maybe it was a deliberate choice once upon a time, not to include "policy" as valid, and we should change the reference in the prose instead? --- a/dmarc-xml-0.2.xsd +++ b/dmarc-xml-0.2.xsd @@ -243,14 +243,15 @@ </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> -<!-- SPF verification result, see RFC 7208 Section 2.6. --> +<!-- SPF verification result, see RFC 8601 Section 2.7.2. --> <xs:simpleType name="SPFResultType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:enumeration value="none"/> - <xs:enumeration value="neutral"/> <xs:enumeration value="pass"/> <xs:enumeration value="fail"/> <xs:enumeration value="softfail"/> + <xs:enumeration value="policy"/> + <xs:enumeration value="neutral"/> <!-- "TempError" commonly implemented as "unknown". --> <xs:enumeration value="temperror"/> <!-- "PermError" commonly implemented as "error". --> Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
