> On Mar 2, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Valery Smyslov <smyslov.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that the current wording is a confusing and can be improved. For 
> example:
>   When constructed the "TLS-Report-Submitter" value MUST match the value in 
> the
>   filename (if it is present there) and the [RFC5321] domain from the 
> "contact-info" from the
>   report body.  These message headers MUST be included and should allow
>   for easy searching for all reports submitted by a report domain or a
>   particular submitter, for example in IMAP [RFC3501]:
> Daniel, Alex, is this interpretation correct?

It would be simpler to say that the filename is an opaque string, and that
any structuring of the filename is merely intended to make the default
name under which a reader might save the report distinct for distinct
reports, and to make to easier to identify a particular report via its
(suggested) filename.  A user (human or email processing bot) is of course
entirely free to ignore the filename and store the report however they
see fit, or not store it as a file at all, and process its records on the
fly into a database.


Uta mailing list

Reply via email to