Re: [dmarc-ietf] Versioning and XML namespaces in aggregate reports (#33, #70, #51)

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 16 May 2021 09:47 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 6B2C13A0E15 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 May 2021 02:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 PmzDMoJ2S-Ik for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 May 2021 02:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 9812A3A0E14 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 May 2021 02:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1621158438; bh=V6/3vsJvuxf74MARD+NQ2DwhHiUBFdzFp5MJhwYG7Lc=; l=672; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Az1oHruoAZdy2SbmVemKR7dAUnfamAQRCoP23+n43wcN+smOI3bh1HSnPfyHiTY91 5mlJurJPZsmlw/LTOBxXvcegbBN3ctrYbvzL4MGOzW34cK0yEkIuauu8XSLZVS3sqM nPSNQnlvcMmyCYhQHKVy6BrJEy35wm5jYxNrOhuRSijFKN9zP1JKZ+TMJDy6p
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC008.0000000060A0EA26.0000662D; Sun, 16 May 2021 11:47:18 +0200
To: "Brotman, Alex" <Alex_Brotman=40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
References: <bc3c25c0-2ec9-2e39-1dd6-1cc08521d03b@wander.science> <2bfed96b-9247-2af1-809c-4f8065ebf64c@gmail.com> <c49bc771-a95e-b78b-dc11-db0cb06ad688@tana.it> <44bdbe41-a43a-f6a4-9788-faaf67db6636@wander.science> <MN2PR11MB4351F2DDE26E28B76AF18AE4F7509@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0689dcb4-07e3-4f04-b5ef-04eede9cbc57@tana.it> <MN2PR11MB43511989C81C7185CA254CFFF7509@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <a3e03a0e-f63f-f0b1-052d-9674662679ab@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 11:47:17 +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: <MN2PR11MB43511989C81C7185CA254CFFF7509@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/pTox3WgGwcw7flZMOgcRkb1JVoY>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Versioning and XML namespaces in aggregate reports (#33, #70, #51)
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: Sun, 16 May 2021 09:47:30 -0000

On Fri 14/May/2021 20:21:59 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
> We "can avoid", but *must* we?  There are a number of tickets this impacts.


Yes.  Matt mentioned ticket #51 (added in the subject), for example.

That change might break consumers who meticulously check the values, but those 
who just report whatever values they found might be undamaged.  In this case, 
I'd reckon that backward compatibility concerns would account for a rather 
minor hesitance against the change.  I'd say 2 on a 0-10 scale.

Perhaps we should rate each ticket.  Or we could produce some dummy reports 
with the new format and check how many parsers still work on them.


Best
Ale
--