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/JdRxmT9Aw3HkWM7rr3Av9B3EwRc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
