Hi, I'm digging up an old discussion, sorry.
It is also related to one of the discussion I opened about duplicate tag : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/NAWZlMNnXt9m_MCvuou9IiYxSrA/ Murray pointed out that a parser is also supposed to follow the DKIM specifications. Finally, Alessandro proposed an expansion of the statement about DKIM specification in DMARC.Thus, If we follow the DKIM RFC6376 specifications, whitespace are allowed :
```Note that WSP is allowed anywhere around tags. In particular, any WSP after the "=" and any WSP before the terminating ";" is not part of the value; however, WSP inside the value is significant.``` https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-3.2 Regards, Olivier On 27/02/2023 19:14, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Seems reasonable. Thanks for the warning on the required white space engineering. Scott K On February 27, 2023 6:05:11 PM UTC, John Levine<jo...@taugh.com> wrote: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, JohnOn 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
-- -------------- Olivier HUREAU PhD Student Laboratoire Informatique Grenoble - UGA - Drakkar
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
