Hi Alex!
-----Original Message-----
From: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:43 AM
To: Barry Leiba <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: RE: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on
draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
<xs:element name="human_result" type="xs:string"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
<xs:attribute name="lang" type="xs:lang" default="EN"/>
</xs:element>
Is that what folks are looking for? If so, I'll upload another revision with
that updated in the two places it exists.
[Roman] I can't speak for the WG, but that looks good to me.
Roman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Leiba <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 6:41 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>
> Cc: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]>; The IESG
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-dmarc-
> aggregate-reporting-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> > > ** human_result. It appears that there is at least one data
> > > element (human_result per Sections 2.1.1.12 and 2.1.1.13) which is
> > > intended to be a human readable string. Per Section 4 of RFC2277
> > > saying “protocols that transfer text MUST provide for carrying
> > > information about the language of that text”, what is the approach
> > > prescribed by this specification? Should an xs:lang attribute be
> > > added to the human_result
> element?
> >
> > I'll be honest that I don't have a preference here. Someone else
> > called this out I believe as well. If others believe it necessary,
> > I will certainly
> add it to the document.
> >
> > [Roman] In my assessment RFC2277 requires some kind of approach to
> > carry the language information. It's up to the WG, but my
> > recommendation would be to use the built-in schema data type of
> > xs:lang
>
> I'll note that 2277 goes on to say this:
>
> Note that this does NOT mean that such information must always be
> present; the requirement is that if the sender of information wishes
> to send information about the language of a text, the protocol
> provides a well-defined way to carry this information.
>
> In other words, we could add an optional xs:lang, which the sender
> could use... or not.
>
> I'll note that "not" is far more likely than otherwise, and, while I
> don't see an objection to providing the option, I can't imagine that
> it will result in any practical
> difference: I doubt we'll see changes in implementations to use it.
>
> Barry
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
