On May 20, 2020 12:23:37 AM UTC, Hector Santos
<hsantos=40isdg....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>On 5/18/2020 8:25 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:31 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com
>> <mailto:jo...@taugh.com>> wrote:
>>
>> There are vast numbers of sites producing and consuming XML
>reports.
>> They interoperate. It works. There is no problem to be solved
>here.
>> Can we stop now and work on something else?
>>
>>
>> The working group's consensus appears to be that aggregate reporting
>> does not need to support JSON output. Does anyone disagree?
>>
>> Seth, as Chair--
>
>Since the specs will already be outdated by the time it is completed,
>may I suggest that there is a new tag that provides a "Preferred
>Report Format" or "prf=" tag using registered acronymns for long time
>"standard" formats. For example:
>
>prf=cvs,json,xml,afrf,iodef
>
>1st choice cvs,
>2nd choice json
>3rd choice xml new current fall back
>4rd choice afrf old fall back, obsolete? See Note 1
>3rd choice iodef old fall back, obsolete? See note 1
>
>The verifier will do what can it offer. The publisher is providing a
>preference, that it may not get. The fall back could be the XML format.
>
>This does two things:
>
>1) Flexibility offers a consumer preference, verifiers can eventually,
>as a "Product Update," provide additional report formats.
>
>2) It doesn't lock in just the "XML" format.
>
>By the time a PS DMARC appears and it is finally completed, it would
>be outdated as the growth of DMARC is realized with a "better spec."
>So flexibility here would be a plus. Consider GitHub for its Web
>Hooks, JSON only.
>
>The conversion tools availability is surely there, but we can't assume
>the consumers have programming skills.
>
>Note #1, there are DMARC descriptions and record generation wizards,
>who don't even offer the "rf=" tag in their wizards and just document
>XML as the report format. Case in point, google:
>
>https://support.google.com/a/answer/2466563?hl=en&ref_topic=2759254
>
>So does this suggest a complete removal of "rf=" tag, no more afrf and
>iodef, and xml only?
>
>If so, can we add the "Preferred Report Format" "prf=" tag? I am
>asking for the "prf=" tag and to register the common format acronyms,
>allowing for advanced DMARC processors to add support over time.
Please don't. This is a large stack of protocol and implementation complexity
for little or no gain.
Hector, you realize that for this to work reliably you would need to code up
support for everything so that you wouldn't have undeliverable reports?
Have you implemented the XML format already and you're willing to code up the
alternatives too?
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
