IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 28 March 2024 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 B2BA7C14CF13 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FlI3-P2_iHb3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A43DBC14F5F7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1711632606; bh=8nElnnrmTVKGtuwLnuzMOUN6qbVFM+Puy/1zgw+ixPc=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=DBjRGPs9n/sivuc68FSQMmO7aL0A2a6lGKl8qhRMKVQwOU3llbItwPn+2++F+Vi9E j0ZwaWwiPUSeYf2d1U36vNQ4+A3koQz8to84UAUx7vpBN3GbAiGgljGFj5c69QgrFH UbQjG3yeLaW7cJIoRYASLLIeGrfn/HTkTVd7V57q3YeRLYodSQTFEXUOPoHXW
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0F5.00000000660570DE.0000276F; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:30:06 +0100
Message-ID: <edef681f-3ceb-4295-952c-86bc8e4df595@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:30:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20240323185339.DA2DD85FCC3A@ary.qy> <97bdc6e7-0170-4101-8b57-2e8e7d8d72c6@tana.it> <3bfe0df7-d5c8-43e9-9e84-ba74cd1bb470@tana.it> <ada8e730-087f-3aa4-3ee3-95e93e6a3255@taugh.com> <2b914f3d-7219-4bea-b072-490cfd7ea672@tana.it> <958c3876-dc44-ae4e-c7f3-cd38ab1dae04@taugh.com> <8b3fea65-cab2-4c6e-9121-487bf4b607a6@tana.it> <41f71ecd-e7ae-4273-aaff-ec5d6f14f641@wander.science> <32b7bb3c-e610-4454-b321-aac8feef41ac@tana.it> <c0cd55a6-d755-450b-b176-ad0fdcc211bb@wander.science>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <c0cd55a6-d755-450b-b176-ad0fdcc211bb@wander.science>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PHrEMBqCwzJSLY1R9OmVtfcWKmA>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:30:22 -0000

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 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.


I guess (3) bears the least important because report receivers don't care about 
the schema and just look for the elements they recognize.  If the schema were 
to be continuously used several times a day, simplifying would be a must.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email