Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My logic is that
running code in the wild should trump whatever is in the spec. Could
people please go over the ABNF with a fine tooth comb?
Eliot
*
*
*Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT*
Reported By: Kaspar Etter
Date Reported: 2021-03-15
Section 7.2.1.1. says:
dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS ; "Report"
%x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS ; "Domain:"
domain-name 1*FWS ; from RFC 6376
%x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:"
1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS
%x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:"
msg-id ; from RFC 5322
It should say:
dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS ; "Report"
%x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS ; "Domain:"
domain-name 1*FWS ; from RFC 6376
%x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:"
1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS
%x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:"
1*FWS %x3c dot-atom-text %x3e ; from RFC 5322
Notes:
According to RFC 5322, msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">"
[CFWS]. The example given in Section 7.2.1.1. (<2002.02.15.1>) does not
adhere to this and neither do reports in the wild. Instead of referring
to the msg-id ABNF, I suggest that we refer to the dot-atom-text ABNF
and include "<" and ">" as ASCII characters. This also has the advantage
of getting rid of CFWS. According to RFC 5322, "comments may be included
in structured field bodies" but "Subject" is not a structured header field.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
