> On Mar 9, 2024, at 7:33 PM, OLIVIER HUREAU 
> <olivier.hur...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> dmarc-version = "v" equals %s"DMARC1
> > I believe the "%s" should be dropped
> 
> 'DMARC1' is case-sensitive in 7489.
> Either we keep the "%s" or we go back to 7489 version : "%x44 %x4d %x41 %x52 
> %x43 %x31"
> 
> > I think it should be %x20-3A /  %x3C-7E
> Agreed.
> 
> I would also add comment about the dmarc-fo ABNF : 
> 
> dmarc-fo  = "0" / "1" / "d" / "s" / "d:s" / "s:d"
> 
> The FO paragraph 
> (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30.html#name-general-record-format)
>  explicitly states that there exist 3 kinds of failure reports :
> - DMARC failure report.
> - DKIM failure report.
> - SPF failure report.
> 
> However, with the current ABNF, we could only ask for "DMARC failure report" 
> or ("DKIM failure report" and/or "SPF failure report")
> 
> Shouldn't we have an ANBF rule with all the possible permutations or a more 
> generic one such as :
> 
> dmarc-fo = dmarc-fo-value *(":" dmarc-fo-value)
> dmarc-fo-value = "0" / "1" / "d" / "s"
> 
> 
> Olivier
> 
> De: "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.i...@gmail.com>
> À: "IETF DMARC WG" <dmarc@ietf.org>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 10 Mars 2024 01:00:33
> Objet: [dmarc-ietf] picking nits with the ABNF
> 
> Just picking over the ABNF with my checks, some Qs
> 
> 
> dmarc-version = "v" equals %s"DMARC1
> 
> I believe the "%s" should be dropped
> 
>   dmarc-value   = %x20-3A |  %x3C-7E
> 
> I think it should be %x20-3A /  %x3C-7E
> 
> and now just something suggested.  The comments for URI read like this
> 
>                 ; "URI" is imported from [RFC3986]; commas
>                 ; (ASCII 0x2C) and exclamation points
>                 ; (ASCII 0x21) MUST be encoded
> 
> Could they be rewritten for readability
> 
>                 ; "URI" is imported from [RFC3986];  
>                 ; (ASCII 0x2C) commas and  
>                 ; (ASCII 0x21) exclamation points
>                 ; MUST be encoded
> 
> gladly tell me i'm too obsessive
> 
> 
> 
Yes, since most people are used to the FO tag but would happily embrace this 
upgrade.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to