As Barry pointed out, RFC7405 does provide the %s notation. But since your voice was added on top of mine, I might point out that 7405 is only proposed, not accepted.
-- Les From: dmarc <dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:28 PM To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Updating ABNF for Next Rev? Speaking as a participant: On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 10:12 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it<mailto:ves...@tana.it>> wrote: > dmarc-version = "v" *WSP "=" *WSP %x44 %x4d %x41 %x52 %x43 %x31 Can we use RFC 7405? It is more readable: Speaking as a participant: On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 10:12 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it<mailto:ves...@tana.it>> wrote: > 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 +1 to what Les said about this particular ABNF. RFC5234 (STD 68) says string literals are not case sensitive; we can't just override that here with a comment. I would prefer this, if the goal is to make it readable: dmarc-version = %x76 *WSP "=" *WSP %x44 %x4d %x41 %x52 %x43 %x31 ; e.g., "v=DMARC1" Note that the "v" up front in what we have now allows either case as well, so that has to change to the hex notation to lock it down. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
