Re: [dmarc-ietf] Extensions in Aggregate Reporting - Feedback Requested

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 14 June 2021 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7013A29D4 for <>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DytTbpGYkojb for <>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5314E3A29D3 for <>; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1623688076; bh=oyD6iyRO797hSwZbW254rMObRGBH2yaLFbKgbUQd0lE=; l=1387; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CD1cS3FevQdlLoaSMHP9Mz5zwa0PwBp/5DmkMj5cXraNbOtyWBZR9EIFYQUgnNxrI ELKR4Hr4N39rfdCj8szZgS4d66DmSIeYp9uwjJj9+e3ycqKX8f5zpclt1OrFg/Kfkm OZiJFDW0fNVDY7bToa/kIDevfkWf+uGmUtGnFioO5RsqzCSniNsVkEwJilbMw
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC026.0000000060C7838C.00003727; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:27:56 +0200
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:27:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Extensions in Aggregate Reporting - Feedback Requested
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:28:07 -0000

On Mon 14/Jun/2021 14:41:44 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> I agree that all elements, each time they are utilized, should mention a reference as to how they are to be utilized.
> [...]
> So, a sample report may look something like:
>     <feedback>
>       <version>2.0</version>
>       <report_metadata>
>         <version>2</version>

So why doesn't <feedback> mention a reference to how it is utilized?

About that overabundance of <version>'s, the 1st entry, right below <feedback>, is the aggregate report version.  Thus far, we agreed that it is useless as a grammar indication if <feedback> contains its namespace declaration.  However, Matt noted that there may be parsers that consider reports to be pre-IETF drafts if they miss the <version> element.  In this case, it makes sense to keep <version>1.0</version> for backward compatibility, especially if we try not to break existing parsers.

The second <version> entry, inside <report_metadata>, had better wear a different name, to avoid confusion.  I assume it's meant to be the report reference version.  A couple of alternative examples: