> > dmarc-record = dmarc-version dmarc-sep *(dmarc-tag dmarc-sep) > > No, in April we said something like so: > > dmarc-record = dmarc-version *(dmarc-sep dmarc-tag) [dmarc-sep]
Indeed; the difference between "must end with dmarc-sep" and "may end with dmarc-sep". I also recall us choosing the latter. > > dmarc-version = "v" *WSP "=" *WSP %x44 %x4d %x41 %x52 %x43 %x31 > > Can we use RFC 7405? It is more readable: > > dmarc-version = "v" *WSP "=" *WSP %s"DMARC1" ; case sensitive Strong agreement on readability here. Another point on readability: > > dmarc-request = "p" *WSP "=" *WSP > > ( "none" / "quarantine" / "reject" ) Quite a few constructs include this: *WSP "=" *WSP Is it worth creating something like this: equals = *WSP "=" *WSP ...so we could then use... dmarc-request = "p" equals ( "none" / "quarantine" / "reject" ) ...and so on? I find that to be easier on the eyes, though others might see it as adding complication to the ABNF. Thoughts? Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
