On Mon 24/Jul/2023 18:17:10 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:13 AM OLIVIER HUREAU
<olivier.hur...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> wrote:
If you want more than just the ABNF to defend that position, have a
look at the DKIM RFC, from which this syntax was cloned; it says:
Then wouldn't it make sense to add this specification to DMARC-bis?
Can't hurt.
+1, the reference in Section 5.3 is a bit vague. For a possible expansion:
OLD
DMARC records follow the extensible "tag-value" syntax for DNS-based key
records defined in DKIM [RFC6376].
NEW
DMARC records follow the extensible "tag-value" syntax for DNS-based key
records defined in DKIM [Section 3.2 of RFC6376], which defines parser behavior
when tags are unrecognized, repeated, case-sensitive and the like.
jm2c
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
