It appears that Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I agree that we should fix this tolerance in the bis document.
I made a pull request. The change is four characters but the pull request looks complicated because I had to futz with whitespace to keep xml2rfc from complaining that things are too wide. R's, John >On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:48 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:29 AM Tõnu Tammer <tonu=40cert...@dmarc.ietf.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I am curious to know what the stance is on trailing whitespace within >>> DMARC records. >>> >>> Strictly following the RFC 7489 and the formal specification in section >>> 6.4, if there is no trailing dmarc-sep with the associated semicolon, >>> trailing whitespace is not allowed. >>> >>> >>> >>> For example a record like: "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100 " would be >>> invalid, >>> whereas "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100 ; " would be valid. >>> >> >> I think your interpretation is correct, that's what the specification >> says. A parser would be right to reject it. >> >> As an implementer, I would probably tolerate this. Trailing whitespace >> has almost never been something worth failing on in my experience. >> >> I would also suggest that the working group discuss making such tolerance >> explicit in the bis document if it's not too late to add a small issue for >> consideration. >> >> -MSK, no hat on >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > >-=-=-=-=-=- >[Alternative: text/html] >-=-=-=-=-=- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
