I think that's a good idea. Mike Jones from Fortra (ne Agari) also expressed concern during M3AAWG 57 about problems for data analysis to be able to determine how a specific receiver's result was achieved, with the discovery methodology doubling. An XML indication specifying the approach that the receiver used should help allay that concern.
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 8:44 AM Trent Adams <tadams= 40proofpoint....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > Alex - > > > > Good catch... and yeah, if the DMARC-bis version won't be incremented, I > agree that the "version" field in the RUA should remain "1" for both > RFC7489 and DMARC-bis so there's no disconnect in meaning of "version". > > > > What about adding a field that'd expressly identifies which DMARC record > discovery mechanism was used? > > > > That way a report analyst would be able to handle differences in results > from different evaluators (some using the RFC7489 "hop", and others using > the -bis "tree walk") for the same set of published policies. > > > > Perhaps something like: > > > > <!-- The mechanism used for DMARC record discovery. --> > > <xs:element name="discovery_mechanism" type="xs:string" > > minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> > > > > The excepted values being the enumerated discovery mechanisms (e.g. > something like "hop", "treewalk"). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > - Trent > > > > > > > > *From: *dmarc <dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Brotman, Alex" > <Alex_Brotman=40comcast....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:25 AM > *To: *"dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org> > *Subject: *[dmarc-ietf] Version in aggregate report > > > > While reviewing something in the aggregate doc, I came across this bit in > the XML specification. Unless I've missed something, we're not incrementing > the version in the DMARC DNS record. <!-- The version declared in the DMARC > record found. > > While reviewing something in the aggregate doc, I came across this bit in the > XML specification. Unless I've missed something, we're not incrementing the > version in the DMARC DNS record. > > > > <!-- The version declared in the DMARC record found. --> > > <xs:element name="version_published" type="xs:decimal" > > minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> > > > > So, if we're not changing that DNS record, obviously this "version" string > has less meaning. The prose describing the field says this would be "1" or > "2". If we're going to stick to not incrementing the version string, I need > to update this to reflect that. Not a horrible task, just wanted to be clear > before I make work for myself. > > > > -- > > Alex Brotman > > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > > Comcast > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmarc mailing list > > dmarc@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!ORgEfCBsr282Fw!pZ3zknT6evZJHIUrrdNBtZV32p6hgQXznrYrM80i5YsP-PzFnI7TEG6znII6BZlUN43ij3wR65B1HC-LbYgoOeD_6-6G0HzY$ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!ORgEfCBsr282Fw!pZ3zknT6evZJHIUrrdNBtZV32p6hgQXznrYrM80i5YsP-PzFnI7TEG6znII6BZlUN43ij3wR65B1HC-LbYgoOeD_6-6G0HzY$> > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
