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

Matthäus Wander <mail@wander.science> Sat, 05 June 2021 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mail@wander.science>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C039D3A2079 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 04:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wander.science
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I8BVdxMDKhKq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 04:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swznet.de (cathay.swznet.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:13b:2048::113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07D733A2075 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 04:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wander.science; s=cathay; h=Subject:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version: Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=LbN6xIyZLwzi/UBZMHeOwrqreySaPx9pxdxZI+VDJWU=; b=jC0Uc0IAr48rUdMgt3jJVZnQt YmdsZQ54Vv4dwDPpOG17O/pBD+ELc1G1coPbgqgPctOchgFPN365ot5bh9sxySbdX5dNsG0zWlUkO BOJVgrYNaKR3sTtD4pzEIpLB35vrD0kQek3wQn4bqqhlYyqSJI6LaPjRps8D2DSSBfKYdmpq9O0jd 4yG64mzErUMQVe3CYGW90kCK5VIWazLFILeGbre4od1wtYq31p4iWVYYNIViQh7TEPuEYpKalJ/r9 fyiNW1C9OgXhAKTaF9zLUVBOHxFp4ixIhnsVw6f2yuFk2gJL/Yf6yun1eDEQaYtXNbFuk6nqjtnNs /fU3QXS3A==;
Received: from dynamic-2a01-0c22-b826-2100-284a-ff4d-6201-9b43.c22.pool.telefonica.de ([2a01:c22:b826:2100:284a:ff4d:6201:9b43]) by mail.swznet.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mail@wander.science>) id 1lpUuL-0003Eu-HT for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 13:56:09 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <MN2PR11MB4351A6C5A477DB006CB6DD72F73C9@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <f04b1dfa-2707-a67e-4df8-bf82d637f4f8@tana.it>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Matth=c3=a4us_Wander?= <mail@wander.science>
Message-ID: <e213afa6-c777-d0a6-48ac-43965ff264cd@wander.science>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 13:56:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f04b1dfa-2707-a67e-4df8-bf82d637f4f8@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms080505080001080801090801"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:c22:b826:2100:284a:ff4d:6201:9b43
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mail@wander.science
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 08 May 2019 21:11:16 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.swznet.de)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KY7tK1bON6WVsPLrwbfCKRGvhng>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Extensions in Aggregate Reporting - Feedback Requested
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2021 11:56:17 -0000

Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2021-06-04 11:26:
> Second, I'm not sure we need an <extensions> container.  
> I'd go for an example like, say, so:
> 
> [...]
>     <extension_metadata name="bimi" 
> xmlns="http://ietf.org/xml-namesapaces/bimi-xml?/1.0">
 > [...]
>        <extension name="bimi" 
> xmlns="http://ietf.org/xml-namesapaces/bimi-xml??/1.0">

If we use an attribute for the extension name, then we don't the 
container section.
As the current schema does not use attributes at all, I'm more inclined 
to define the extension name in a different way for consistent non-use 
of attributes. But that's a minor detail.

>> 1) Extensions in their own section (as it is now) or within each <row> 
>> element
> 
> 
> Both, and both optional.  An extension can have some data to add in some 
> <record>, but not necessarily in all of them.

+1

Regards,
Matt