On August 7, 2023 7:47:03 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 1:09 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Based on the ABNF in -28, how about something like this: >> >> >> dmarc-method = "dkim" / "spf" >> >> dmarc-auth = "auth" equals dmarc-method *(*WSP "," *WSP dmarc-method) >> >> >> I think this "should"(*) allow for all permutations but also simplifies >> it, and I agree with Barry it should be simpler. >> > >This looks good to me, except to be consistent with DKIM (from which this >general syntax was borrowed) I'd suggest: > >* using colon as the separator rather than comma >* WSP and CFWS should follow whatever we did for other tags >* don't allow an empty list; I can't think of any DKIM or DMARC tag that >accepts a list and also allows an empty value > >If we think we might add "arc" or something else in the future, do we need >a registry of supported methods? If not, we'll have to rev DMARC every >time a new one comes into favor.
I think we don't need a registry. Rationale: 1. There is no additional method that's being contemplated (whatever ARC is, it's not a first class alternative to SPF or DKIM). 2. Currently, we have text in the specification to describe how to use the output of SPF and DKIM for DMARC. I don't think there's much prospect any new method wouldn't need something similar. I think a registry would only complicate things and wouldn't actually be helpful. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
