Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2023-11-17 10:22:
On Thu 16/Nov/2023 16:47:48 +0100 Olivier Hureau wrote:
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>.
[...]
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?
[*] https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-registry.xhtml
[†] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/JdRxmT9Aw3HkWM7rr3Av9B3EwRc
Speaking from today, I think the presence or content of the <version>
field does not really matter. The "dmarc-2.0" XML schema declares it
optional, which is probably the best choice.
In my data, 75% of reporters announce <version>1.0</version>. They can
continue to do so. Dave Crocker has argued that bumping the version
number is of no use:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/inqFhiHcaSnAaub8ZzyiLSbUTsw/>
Omitting the <version> field might confuse the statistics of report
analyzers, but most likely won't do any harm.
Regards,
Matt
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
