[dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF
Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 28 May 2021 19:11 UTC
Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 02F9D3A3256 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2021 12:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 DMICGQwhfqVD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2021 12:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E1583A3257 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2021 12:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id e2so6588088ljk.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2021 12:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=msWv1aT1N/iL0CW5qq16zv/+w6qfo8CCgUnqXR/vIsw=; b=D+ZHSSjXLCGWBbV/4OUORSCZvsbrAP/cDCPf0+5iuCebHs1KQKlv7qvpQA+6ST/qY4 RjpIaG5zsNWacmWF3scMoNn3WP55EWkASqayqDjR+G0hO7fBJqcu/0btOWhzUgOWOQ1w fGs0Xw7chKYn+si0X8xlZ6h0nI+jNDUUPeE9910JGZnW7MKdqh91xw6zsmi5HtCjuGu6 vLTKuQdG6x5cJq40sSBBd+5/csOdvAatwLiPnXWWgg6KE3mRgvAm812ut9Xuu29+dEBE BJjKMY1zpIlOmR72xb3bqyopMng8XoRDknJg27AfRyulDrK4f16DMKK9Z8sJSUZG9YuS TdWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=msWv1aT1N/iL0CW5qq16zv/+w6qfo8CCgUnqXR/vIsw=; b=XOjpHeZfgL+uaATuKWvfEZipME8w5oACCIMIz6QGlXwy+6jhQRKm+osl+xz02E9J62 MA43KWiUbeTrhRCE9wisXm754ugoQBPu15bTJnV65/r/ZAZkjHUqSqSUiUUIEzXG5xaQ 3v1AswU+fhBBqkCUBFXlaTlbdPubT9cVpYRen5zuWDTxHOzdBG92w13adlA61ES8yz7A pjIPrEnn95LrBkomMbowOyVvfz7EnkI22NoeCPZnS25hxKGtigj4Nz7c6vulQUAOWxOR htUYU3UMgBPi/zFaNPb8sdMew0pXerW/sYIcacDAjYzYHm4S40L7aoyjZcXNo3vKtIdW 1lmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531imp4Ll9wHPhTBsIl23zOZp0ryr58gw16eM5hG2IBfthTJbl4j DwqhXXn052A95UDlYVVqNTdlA6Kdswq5ESLX+9xkKy2E
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTq7A5XnFlFitKLT+yVH0eLuhhtmaDWrax2+M9L769yUeP00OQE2u2XRj4dco3mfT7hlzAfXsP+AI5qBGXfzM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1105:: with SMTP id d5mr7530012ljo.431.1622229056146; Fri, 28 May 2021 12:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 15:10:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+HAtjGu4Y+Nu=mhpru5UUwQFWuk_XZq=UGi1CZU-_ExKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a2cec805c368a29a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ddK5xAI59GgQr6vhRQ6NMHrKiVs>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF
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: Fri, 28 May 2021 19:11:01 -0000
So in looking at removing the "ri" tag from the document, I realized that the ABNF reference needed to be removed also. Thinking about that, I realized that when one adds a new tag to the registry there should be a formalized way that it is represented in the ABNF. Perhaps the IANA Consideration section should also spell out that for new tags, the specification should also include the incorporating ABNF. tim
- [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Tim Wicinski
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Seth Blank
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] Question on ABNF Tim Wicinski