Subject: [dmarc-ietf] inconsistency - specified optional tags vs XML spec

From: Tomki Camp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:10:50 -0700

There are several options for the DMARC DNS entry which are called out as
optional, with defaults, in the body of the spec.  However some of these
(aspf, adkim)
which are spelled out as optional are not defined so in the XML itself.

In 5.2 each are specified as optional, with default='r'.
To match this properly, shouldn't the corresponding entry in XML show
default="r" and minOccurs="0" elements?

Also, the XML does not currently address the new 'fo' entry.

ref: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/?include_text=1

Thanks
Tomki Camp, Agari Director of Support
[email-masked] l M: 415.779.2854 l www.agari.com <http://www.agari.com/>
Learn who is most vulnerable to cybercrime in the Agari Q2 TrustIndex here
<http://info.agari.com/agari-email-trust-index-q2-2013>
Sign up for our webinar 8 Steps to DMARC here
<http://info.agari.com/agari-weekly-webinar-sign-up>

---

From: Tomki Camp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:07:56 -0700

Mike J pointed out to me that I conflated some things; the 'fo' tag is
probably not a reasonable candidate to include in the XML, because it's
simply an advisory in the published DMARC DNS record, influencing the
generation of forensic reports.

So this is really just down to updating the XML to account for the
disjunction of 'optional' items being set as 'required' via XML.
  (and updating the schema # and the XML hosted at dmarc.org)

--Tomki

From:  Tomki Camp <[email-masked]>
Date:  Friday, August 23, 2013 8:10 AM
To:  <[email-masked]>
Subject:  inconsistency - specified optional tags vs XML spec