Re: [dmarc-ietf] Versioning and XML namespaces in aggregate reports (#33, #70)

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Mon 10/May/2021 17:28:20 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/10/2021 7:10 AM, Matthäus Wander wrote:
>> I support the use of the namespace declaration. A report with namespace
>> declaration allows for automatic syntax checks with XML Schema
>> Validation.
> 
> Version numbers, and the like, tend to be a lot less useful than intuition 
> leads one to expect.


Automatic syntax checks are a different beast, though.


> The distinction to make is 'increments' versus 'incompatibilities'.
> 
> If an new spec merely /adds/ to a previous spec, then the presence of the new 
> constructs is self-declaring.  The only requirement is to have the base 
> specification declare that unrecognized constructs are to be ignored.  So, 
> versioning adds the illusion of utility, but really only adds unnecessary 
> complexity.


I think the format we'll end up with will be pretty compatible with the 
existing practice, meaning that existing report consumers that use a proper XML 
parser and ignore unknown tags can work unchanged.  I don't think any consumer 
parses reports "by hands".

The added complexity of using proper XML constructs to define the format, as 
well as properly formatting each instance, enables advanced use of XML parsing 
tools.  Did you notice no site offers aggregate report validation services?


> Incompatibilities, where new constructs conflict with previous ones, mean that 
> the new specification is not a new version.  It is an independent 
> specification.  It needs to be labeled accordingly.


This is not our case.  Even if we find a better TLD for the targetNamespace 
URL, the format is going to be the first official version of DMARC aggregate 
report format, following the one(s) in use since 2012.


Best
Ale
--