Closed ietf-svn-bot closed 3 years ago
@freddie@freddieleeman.nl commented
My blog on DMARC reporting and RFC guidelines: https://www.uriports.com/blog/dmarc-reports-ietf-rfc-compliance/
The DMARC aggregate report has an element with the name policy_published
. This name would indicate that the elements within, contain the domain's published policy. The current RFC explains this element as PolicyPublishedType
.
The comments mention "applied" which is in contrast to the name of the element (policy_published
), as some organizations that send aggregate reports do not send failure reports and thus do not "apply" the "fo" (Failure reporting options) element. This particular element's comment also implies that it is optional: "failure reporting options in effect". On the other hand, this element has a default minOccurs
value of 1, so it should not be omitted.
If you ask me, the comments are to blame, and that's why so many organizations have a different implementation. I think the element policy_published
should just be just that: "the published policy". When a policy tag is omitted in the prolicy because it is optional (adkim, aspf, sp, pct and fo), the tag's default value should be used in the reports.
As the default minOccurs
value is 1
, I suggest we remove the minOccurs=0
in this situation instead of changing it to minOccurs=1
.
@freddie@freddieleeman.nl commented
As the default minOccurs
value throughout the guidelines is 1
, I've removed all the minOccurs=1
from the document. This was causing interpretation issues because only some of the elements specified this.
@todd.herr@valimail.com changed component from dmarc-future-notes
to dmarc-aggregate-reporting
@mail@wander.science commented
Looks good to me in -02.
_@alexbrotman@comcast.com changed status from new
to closed
_@alexbrotman@comcast.com set resolution to fixed
resolution_fixed
type_enhancement
| by vesely@tana.itNote added by Freddie Leeman in http://bit.ly/dmarc-rpt-schema
The comment before changed to:
Consequently, minOccurs="0" is struck out from elements adkim and aspf.
The phrase "in effect" is struck out from the comment preceding element fo.
Issue migrated from trac:31 at 2022-01-24 16:15:27 +0000