On 15/11/2023 14:22, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
We've had quite some discussion on that scheme, which resulted inhttps://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/blob/main/dmarc-xml-0.2.xsd included in the current draft.
Indeed, I was referring to this one.However, I think you should have a fixed value for the /version variable in order to clearly differentiate the XSD version, Even thought it is clearly specified in RFC 7489 : ``` The "version" for reports generated per this specification MUST bethe value 1.0. ``` It is not yet specified in Dmarcbis.
On 16/11/2023 02:25, Steven M Jones wrote:
I can put an updated version on dmarc.org
Attached you will find the version of the XSD as presented in RFC 7489. I have removed the trailing white-space and line breaks. However, I would suggest waiting the WG opinion before doing any modifications. It's been like that for a long time already.
Regards, Olivier
rfc7489.xsd
Description: XML document
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
