Per Richard Gray for Aggregate Reporting (from IETF list)

[abrotman]

Hi,

I've been reading over the DMARC Aggregate Reporting draft and have some feedback on the schema and sample report.

• The ActionDispositionType type definition in the schema is missing a closing </xs:simpleType> tag

• The schema has the DMARC report version element () specified immediately under the root element and not under <report_metadata> as stated in section 2.1

• The draft states that <policy_published> has mandatory fields domain, p, and sp, and optional fields fo, adkim, aspf, and testing.
  The schema for PolicyPublishedType has mandatory fields domain and version_published, with all other fields optional. Should version_published be mandatory or optional?

• The schema for IdentifierType has header_from and envelope_from as mandatory fields, and envelope_to as an optional field. The sample report includes only header_from. The draft text in section 2.1 says "In most cases, this will be a header_from element, which will contain the 5322.From domain from the message". Is it the intention of the draft that envelope_to should be mandatory?

• The schema for SPFAuthResultType has scope (mfrom/helo) as a mandatory attribute but the sample report does not include a scope section. Should the SPF scope be a mandatory field?

• The schema does not currently permit report extensions as described in the draft (section 4). I am not sure if it is possible to define a schema allowing an arbitrary element name with a required definition attribute (pointing to the extension spec).

  As an alternative, would it be better to have a standard element name representing an arbitrary extension, with an attribute (even just the definition URI) to identify the specific extension in use? E.g.

  ...

• Lastly, the draft states that reports have two primary sections, one with descriptive information and the other with row-data for the report. The "informative" section is broken into two sub-sections, which are report_metadata and policy_published. Would it perhaps be clearer to say that there are three main sections rather than two?
  report_metadata and policy_published are subsections of the main feedback element along with the record elements holding the row data.
  The schema is clear in this instance, I just wondered if the wording in the draft might be improved.

Regards,
Richard

[abrotman]

Bullet 1 resolved