On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 8:50 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> On Sun 06/Aug/2023 11:38:18 +0000 Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:14 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> On Sat 05/Aug/2023 22:24:28 +0000 Tim Wicinski wrote: > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> 5.3. General Record Format > >>> > >>> auth: (comma-separated plain-text list of dmarc-methods; OPTIONAL; > >> default is "spf,dkim") > >>> > >>> Indicates the supported authentication methods. The order of the > >> list is not significant and > >>> unknown methods are ignored. Possible values are as follows: > >>> > >>> dkim: Authenticate with DKIM > >>> spf: Authenticate with SPF > >>> > >>> An empty list indicates the tag is ignored. > >> > >> According to the grammar below, an empty list is a syntax error. I'd > keep > >> the syntax as is and remove the line mentioning an empty list. > > > > Good catch - but why not say "an empty list is a syntax error". That is > > useful (to me, others may see it otherwise). > > > Yes, noting that may better readability. Since syntax errors MUST be > ignored, it conveys the same meaning as before, but the reason is clearer. > Agreed that it's fine to treat it as syntax error, and it should be ignored. I put in the earlier language just to have that condition specified. -Wei > > > One last thing, how about directly assessing extensibility? > > dmarc-method = %s"dkim" / %s"spf" / dmarc-value > > Ignoring unknown methods is already in the text, so it wouldn't hurt. I > have no useful extension in mind, but, for DMARC-fiction examples, one > could think of "arc", "dnswl", "dkim-atps", ... > > BTW, all literals in Section 5.4 miss those %s'. > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
