Apologies, I went back to read this while I was looking for other updates.
That URL was the only update that was required for DMARCbis for Aggregate Reports? If so, it'll be updated in the next draft. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 4:22 AM > To: dmarc@ietf.org; Brotman, Alex <alex_brot...@comcast.com> > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML > Schema > > On Thu 16/Nov/2023 16:47:48 +0100 Olivier Hureau wrote: > > On 15/11/2023 14:22, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> > >> We've had quite some discussion on that scheme, which resulted in > >> https://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. > > > That's right. The only mention is in Appendix B. Sample Report, saying > <version>1.0</version>. > > That sample record is wrong, as it identifies itself as <feedback > xmlns="http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.2";>. It should have used > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dmarc-2.0". My fault proposing it. Alex, > would you pleas fix that? > > The IETF XML Registry is defined by RFC 3688.[*] IANA is supposed to insert > our "dmarc-2.0" per IANA Considerations section. Referencing that schema in > the feedback element identifies the format more clearly than a version > number. > However, Matt suggested to keep <version> for compliance with RFC 7489[†]. > In that case, is it correct to stick to 1,0? > > I note that while the report metadata provides for producer identifiers and > contacts, the software name and version are missing. Or should version refer > to the software? (In that case only its name is missing...) > > > Best > Ale > -- > [*] https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-registry.xhtml > [†] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/JdRxmT9Aw3HkWM7rr3Av9B3 > EwRc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
