It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said: >On Tue 07/Jun/2022 04:03:35 +0200 John Levine wrote: >> Here's my alternate take: make the ABNF a lot simpler to >> reflect the actual loose syntax. >> >> dmarc-record = dmarc-version *(*WSP ";" *WSP dmarc-tag) *WSP *%x3b >> >> dmarc-tag = 1*ALPHA %WSP '=' *WSP 1*dmarc-value >> >> dmarc-value = %x20-3a | %x3c-7e ; any printing chars but semicolon >> >> dmarc-version = "v" *WSP "=" *WSP %x44 %x4d %x41 %x52 %x43 %x31 >> >> Don't waste ABNF defining the tag names. Just define the values for >> the various tags: > >The last rule specifies that "v" stands for version. The following rules omit >that point. How do you specify "p" for dmarc-request, "t" for dmarc-test, and >the like?
In a table in the text. They're all strings of letters 1*ALPHA >> dmarc-uri = URI >> ; "URI" is imported from [RFC3986]; commas (ASCII >> ; 0x2C) and exclamation points (ASCII 0x21) >> ; MUST be encoded > >If we get rid of size limits, this comment needs to be amended. For backward compatibility we should allow the limits even if reporters ignore them. >>> dmarc-rfmt = Keyword *(*WSP ":" Keyword) >>> ; registered reporting formats only >>> >>> "Keyword" is imported from Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5321]. > >After 7 years, there is still only afrf. What do we expect? Since it turns out that almost nobody sends failure reports, I expect nothing will change. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
