If you think this is ready, I will merge a PR and release a new version after that.
-- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel K. <dan...@vendo.no> > Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 7:33 PM > To: dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Proposal for new prose describing the aggregate > report > XML > > On 1/3/25 16:58, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > On Thu 02/Jan/2025 05:16:26 +0100 Daniel K. wrote: > >> On 12/30/24 19:40, Daniel K. wrote: > >>> Alex requested min/max count of the elements, REQUIRED / OPTIONAL > >>> could be replaced by one of "0..1", "0..n", "1..1", "1..n" that > >>> nicely conveys both min/max and requirement level, albeit a bit less > >>> visually distinctive. > >> > >> I took a page from the regexp world, so in addition to "R" for > >> required, I introduced "+" for "one or more" and "*" for "zero or more". > > > > I still think a yes/no under a "REQUIRED" column header would be > > easier to grok, even if it takes up more horizontal space. However, I > > like the effect of the tables being distributed into their respective > > sections. > > The price is two extra pages, compared to the compact version. > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ietf.vendo.no/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate- > reporting-table-wide- > col.txt__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!CMqzoQ2U0EqfCZTbVVjZyXY3yWCDZ0wh9rnb_9vBEvdv > uIj4QLNh2CYROnWYhHwsSpqU2BVbkznu-BLMAH5z$ > > Using "Req'd" as the table header get one of those pages back. > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ietf.vendo.no/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate- > reporting-table-medium- > col.txt__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!CMqzoQ2U0EqfCZTbVVjZyXY3yWCDZ0wh9rnb_9vBEvdv > uIj4QLNh2CYROnWYhHwsSpqU2BVbkznu-DoJVLHq$ > > The support for communicating which elements having no limit to their number > are also lost, unless we put in '0..n', '1..n', 'No *', 'Yes *', or something > ABNF-like > ('*', '1*') in the yes/no column for those few special elements. Another > option is > of course to spell it out after the table, see below. > > Here are the variants, for comparison. > > +==============+===+=============================+ > | Element name | # | Content | > +==============+===+=============================+ > | dkim | * | DKIM authentication result, | > | | | see Section 2.1.1.11. | > +--------------+---+-----------------------------+ > | spf | | SPF authentication result, | > | | | see Section 2.1.1.12. | > +--------------+---+-----------------------------+ > > +==============+==========+=============================+ > | Element name | Required | Content | > +==============+==========+=============================+ > | dkim | No | DKIM authentication result, | > | | | see Section 2.1.1.11. | > +--------------+----------+-----------------------------+ > | spf | No | SPF authentication result, | > | | | see Section 2.1.1.12. | > +--------------+----------+-----------------------------+ > > +==============+=======+=============================+ > | Element name | Req'd | Content | > +==============+=======+=============================+ > | dkim | No | DKIM authentication result, | > | | | see Section 2.1.1.11. | > +--------------+-------+-----------------------------+ > | spf | No | SPF authentication result, | > | | | see Section 2.1.1.12. | > +--------------+-------+-----------------------------+ > > The maximum number of "dkim" elements is unbounded. > > > 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
