On Mon 16/Mar/2015 05:17:37 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> This seems to be a bug: >> >> OLD: >> dmarc-uri = URI [ "!" 1*DIGIT [ "k" / "m" / "g" / "t" ] ] >> ; "URI" is imported from [URI]; commas (ASCII >> ; 0x2c) and exclamation points (ASCII 0x21) >> ; MUST be encoded; the numeric portion MUST fit >> ; within an unsigned 64-bit integer >> NEW: >> dmarc-uri = URI [ "!" 1*DIGIT [ "k" / "m" / "g" / "t" ] ] >> ; "URI" is imported from [URI]; commas (ASCII >> ; 0x2c), exclamation points (ASCII 0x21), and >> ; semicolons (ASCII 0x3b) MUST be percent-encoded; >> ; the numeric portion MUST fit within an unsigned >> ; 64-bit integer >> >> Is it equivalent to have, say, rua=mailto:a...@example.com%...@example.com >> and >> rua=mail...@example.com, mailto:b...@example.com? >> >> Is the following meant to to be allowed? >> mailto:dmarc@ietf.org?subject=Formal%20specification%2c%20URI > > Section 2.2 of RFC3986 lists semi-colon as a reserved character that has to > be percent-encoded in these URLs. We don't need to repeat it here, I think.
If the spec is going to be read by ignorants like me, it's better to repeat than to omit. RFC3986 has a very wide scope, and uses phrases like "may (or may not) be defined as delimiters". It says: If data for a URI component would conflict with a reserved character's purpose as a delimiter, then the conflicting data must be percent-encoded before the URI is formed. Commma and exclamation (which are sub-delims like semicolon) are apparently used in dmarc-uri's rule. The preceding DMARC section says: DMARC records follow the extensible "tag-value" syntax for DNS-based key records defined in DKIM [DKIM]. However, DKIM production rules don't seem to be formally imported. If they are imported, semicolon exclusion is implied by the definition: VALCHAR = %x21-3A / %x3C-7E ; EXCLAMATION to TILDE except SEMICOLON Anyway, I'd add the "percent-" word, lest anyone tries ,... How about the other two questions? I didn't survey but a few DMARC records, but RFC6068 exemplifies the following: Also note that it is syntactically valid to specify both <to> and an <hfname> whose value is "to". That is, <mailto:addr1@an.example,addr2@an.example> is equivalent to <mailto:?to=addr1@an.example,addr2@an.example> is equivalent to <mailto:addr1@an.example?to=addr2@an.example> However, the latter form is NOT RECOMMENDED because different user agents handle this case differently. In particular, some existing clients ignore "to" <hfvalue>s. Yahoo instead uses 1st level syntax: rua=mailto:dmarc-yahoo-...@yahoo-inc.com, mailto:dmarc_y_...@yahoo.com; Ale _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc