#78 closed enhancement (wontfix)

dmarc-record ABNF extensibility

Reported by: alexey.melnikov@… Owned by: todd.herr@…
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: dmarc-bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Hector Santos wrote:

We need a consideration for extended tags in ABNF. The 3.1.3 text
supports extensions.

3.1.3. Alignment and Extension Technologies

If in the future DMARC is extended to include the use of other
authentication mechanisms, the extensions will need to allow for
domain identifier extraction so that alignment with the RFC5322.From
domain can be verified.

Using Extended Tags is a reality and in practice for many years,
"running code", i.e. ATPS (rfc6541), it is part of the Wildcat!
Mail/DKIM package and rest assured more are coming.

How would extended tags be described be the ABNF? It currently says:

; components other than dmarc-version and
; dmarc-request may appear in any order

Can we clarify or define "components" and state it may include
extended tags such as adding to the ABNF

[dmarc-sep dmarc-extended-tag]

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Owner set to todd.herr@…
  • Status changed from new to assigned

comment:2 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Status changed from assigned to accepted

comment:3 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Status changed from accepted to assigned

comment:4 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Status changed from assigned to started

comment:5 Changed 16 months ago by todd.herr@…

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from started to closed

I don't think it's necessary to document hypothetical extended tags.

If in the future new tags are added (and they very well may be!) then the tag(s) can be properly specified in ABNF format at that time.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.