Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2024-03-27 10:00:
I changed that to /[0-9a-fA-F.:]{2,45}/, to allow "::", and inserted it
in dmarc-xml-0.2-short.xsd[*]. At the same time, I added a pattern for
"::1.2.3.4" in dmarc-xml-0.2.xsd[†].
I can live with either of these variants.
I'm not clear what will that schema be used for, if at all. Personally,
the only reason why I'd prefer the long regex is because it might have
some value by itself. The short one is cleaner and more grokkable. The
wrong one has none of those qualities.
I see the following use cases for the schema (sorted from most to least
important):
1) Provide a precise description to implementers (of both report senders
and receivers) how a report should look like.
2) Allow report senders to verify the correctness of their implementation.
3) Allow report receivers to perform input validation before ingesting a
report.
Regards,
Matt
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
