Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

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"

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

> On Mar 11, 2024, at 10:33 PM, Neil Anuskiewicz > wrote: > > Wow, the stat on how many domain operators move to enforcing reject policy > sans aggregate reports shocked me. Trust the force, Luke. It should not be a surprise the client/server protocol concept of “email reporting” was always

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

I’d say extend your thinking on why beyond the format itself. What else could be the cause? On Mar 11, 2024, at 7:33 PM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:Wow, the stat on how many domain operators move to enforcing reject policy sans aggregate reports shocked me. Trust the force, Luke.On Feb 28, 2024, at

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

Wow, the stat on how many domain operators move to enforcing reject policy sans aggregate reports shocked me. Trust the force, Luke.On Feb 28, 2024, at 4:54 AM, OLIVIER HUREAU wrote:Hello,TLDR: I think Dmarcbis should not have reference to the XML format of the aggregate reports in 5.5.3 and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 9:04:03 AM EST Todd Herr wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 6:27 PM Douglas Foster < > > dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I interpret your data differently. These domains collected data until it > > was clear that they could safely move to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 6:27 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > I interpret your data differently. These domains collected data until it > was clear that they could safely move to enforcement. Thereafter, they > saw no need to study reports, at least until their

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:50 AM Brotman, Alex wrote: > Olivier, > > > > Yes, we’re firmly attached to XML for this iteration. With the splitting > of the documents, perhaps this could change in the future without changing > the functionality of DMARC itself. > > > > Agreed on 5.5.3. > I also

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

riginal Message- > From: Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 4:22 AM > To: dmarc@ietf.org; Brotman, Alex > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML > Schema > > On Thu 16/Nov/2023 16:47:48 +0100 Olivier Hureau wrote: > &g

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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On 11/15/23 02:12, OLIVIER HUREAU wrote: As mentioned here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ouSBtpMhD5KJp2osPfUXJktuoMQ/ I have found out that the current reporting ecosystem uses two types of XML Schema

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

On Tue 14/Nov/2023 20:09:52 +0100 John Levine wrote: Thanks for doing this work. It cleans up a messy corner of DMARC. It appears that OLIVIER HUREAU said: I was personally thinking about the following options: 1) Specify Version "2" ... 2) Explore a JSON Format for Aggregated Reports:

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

Thanks for doing this work. It cleans up a messy corner of DMARC. It appears that OLIVIER HUREAU said: >I was personally thinking about the following options: > >1) Specify Version "2" ... > >2) Explore a JSON Format for Aggregated Reports: ... > >3) Create an Extended XML Schema for

[dmarc-ietf] Inconsistencies in DMARC Aggregate Report XML Schema

Hi, As mentioned here: [ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ouSBtpMhD5KJp2osPfUXJktuoMQ/%C2%A0 | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ouSBtpMhD5KJp2osPfUXJktuoMQ/  ] I have found out that the current reporting ecosystem uses two types of XML Schema Definitions. During