On Wed 27/Mar/2024 13:17:57 +0100 Matthäus Wander wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2024-03-27 10:00:
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
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 t
On Tue 26/Mar/2024 21:57:46 +0100 Matthäus Wander wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2024-03-26 19:30:
No. To take several years and come up with a syntax which does not cover all
valid addresses is a sign of incompetence that this WG doesn't deserve, IMHO.
What do others think?
Let's rather
Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2024-03-26 19:30:
No. To take several years and come up with a syntax which does not
cover all valid addresses is a sign of incompetence that this WG doesn't
deserve, IMHO. What do others think?
Let's rather switch to /[0-9a-fA-F.:]+/. Terse and correct.
I'm in f
On Tue 26/Mar/2024 16:18:31 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
::00::12.34.56.78
0:0:0:0:0:0::012.034.056.078
The latter yields failure running the example program in the inet_pton(3) man
page. See e.g.
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/inet_pton.3.html#EXAMPLES
My bad. Aft
::00::12.34.56.78
0:0:0:0:0:0::012.034.056.078
The latter yields failure running the example program in the inet_pton(3) man
page. See e.g.
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/inet_pton.3.html#EXAMPLES
That's yet another reason not to change the XML spec. Please stop.
On Mon 25/Mar/2024 18:54:14 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
How about:
"(:::)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])"/>
Testing yielded a correct fix:
"(::[Ff]{4}:)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]
Apologies, which format should be used. I'm not sure if I should revert to the
one from 7489, or some other prior version.
The one that's in the draft now is fine. Don't add the line with f{4}
which is an insufficiently general special case.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughanno
: Monday, March 25, 2024 1:54 PM
> To: Alessandro Vesely ; dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >> How about:
> >> "(:::)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
How about:
"(:::)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])"/>
Testing yielded a correct fix:
"(::[Ff]{4}:)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])"/>
There are lots of other ways to write
On Sun 24/Mar/2024 13:33:22 +0100 Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sat 23/Mar/2024 19:53:39 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the
-bis document?
It's already fixed in the current
On Sat 23/Mar/2024 19:53:39 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the
-bis document?
It's already fixed in the current markdown.
FYI, the XML pattern is silly. It forbids harmle
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the
>-bis document?
It's already fixed in the current markdown.
FYI, the XML pattern is silly. It forbids harmless stuff like leading zeros in
01.02.03.04
and doesn
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2024-03-23 19:04:
This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in
the -bis document?
It has been already fixed in aggregate-reporting:
Regards,
Matt
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
http
This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the
-bis document?
-MSK
-- Forwarded message -
From: RFC Errata System
Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04 AM
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
To: , ,
Cc: ,
The following errata report has b
15 matches
Mail list logo
