Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC aggregate reports XML Schema inconsistencies

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:36:43 +0200

On Wed 31/Jul/2019 11:47:29 +0200 Freddie Leeman wrote:
> [...]
> 
> DMARC reporting capabilities are a valuable aspect of the DMARC mechanism. It
> can help domain owners in setting up and hardening their DKIM/SPF/DMARC policy.
> But unless these reports follow strict guidelines they just pile up to a lot of
> inconsistent data open to interpretation and guesswork. Domain owners should be
> able to understand the data without the need for a spiritual voodoo DMARC guru
> (trademark pending) to make sense of it all.

I had tried and programmed carefully, but never formally checked what I was
sending.  Too bad.  Now that I did, I see my reports miss the <pct> and <fo>[*]
elements, and some other nuisance.

However, the most striking difference is that, after some tinkering, to be able
to formally validate a report, it has to be rewritten like so:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <dmarc:feedback xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
        xmlns:dmarc="http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.1"
        xs:schemaLocation="http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.1 rua.xsd">
        <report_metadata>
            <org_name>example.com</org_name>
            <email>[email-masked]</email>
            [...]

Is that correct?  Is that how reports should be written?  I ask because
checking some aggregate report I received, I found no mention of namespaces and
schema locations.  XSLT works well even without those.  Validation doesn't.

What do you reckon?

Best
Ale

-- 
[*] <fo> is present in Appendix C of the spec, but not in
https://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.1/rua.xsd

---

From: "Freddie Leeman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 00:05:52 +0200

Great!... more inconsistencies. The xsd file does not make things better. It
also does not mention 'envelope_from', spf scope, and parent version. I
understand now why so many organizations have a different implementation of
DMARC aggregate reporting. I think we can all agree this is a mess we need
to fix. I don't believe the namespaces and schema locations are the biggest
issues but the RFC should be clear about that to. Thanks for bringing the
xsd to my attention.

-- Freddie Leeman

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Alessandro Vesely [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 6 augustus 2019 19:37
Aan: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC aggregate reports XML Schema
inconsistencies

On Wed 31/Jul/2019 11:47:29 +0200 Freddie Leeman wrote:
> [...]
> 
> DMARC reporting capabilities are a valuable aspect of the DMARC 
> mechanism. It can help domain owners in setting up and hardening their
DKIM/SPF/DMARC policy.
> But unless these reports follow strict guidelines they just pile up to 
> a lot of inconsistent data open to interpretation and guesswork. 
> Domain owners should be able to understand the data without the need 
> for a spiritual voodoo DMARC guru (trademark pending) to make sense of it
all.

I had tried and programmed carefully, but never formally checked what I was
sending.  Too bad.  Now that I did, I see my reports miss the <pct> and
<fo>[*] elements, and some other nuisance.

However, the most striking difference is that, after some tinkering, to be
able to formally validate a report, it has to be rewritten like so:

Is that correct?  Is that how reports should be written?  I ask because
checking some aggregate report I received, I found no mention of namespaces
and schema locations.  XSLT works well even without those.  Validation
doesn't.

What do you reckon?

Best
Ale

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:09:27 +0200

Hi all,

I made some more adjustments, including the addition of a 1-record example
report.  By properly setting the attributes of the feedback element, the
version can be parsed by generic xml tools and doesn't need to be written as an
element.

I bumped the version to "http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.2".  I think we all agree
that some changes are necessary.

Best
Ale

On Wed 31/Jul/2019 17:42:12 +0200 Freddie Leeman wrote:
> Thanks Kurt, I’ve made the adjustments to the document.
> [...]
> 
> Van: Kurt Andersen (b) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Verzonden: woensdag 31 juli 2019 17:00
> [...]
> 
> Speaking from experience, it can be helpful to be able to do in-place comments/markup so I've posted http://bit.ly/dmarc-rpt-schema - please make any adjustments in "Suggest" mode or comments you feel appropriate. The invitation extends to all members of this group. 
> 
>  
> 
> --Kurt Andersen 

--

---

From: "Marc Bradshaw" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:16:56 +1000

These changes make sense to me.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019, at 2:09 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> 

--

 Marc Bradshaw
marcbradshaw.net | @marcbradshaw <https://twitter.com/marcbradshaw>