On 1/3/25 16:58, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 02/Jan/2025 05:16:26 +0100 Daniel K. wrote: >> On 12/30/24 19:40, Daniel K. wrote: >>> Alex requested min/max count of the elements, REQUIRED / OPTIONAL could >>> be replaced by one of "0..1", "0..n", "1..1", "1..n" that nicely >>> conveys both min/max and requirement level, albeit a bit less visually >>> distinctive. >> >> I took a page from the regexp world, so in addition to "R" for required, >> I introduced "+" for "one or more" and "*" for "zero or more". > > I still think a yes/no under a "REQUIRED" column header would be easier to > grok, even if it takes up more horizontal space. However, I like the effect > of > the tables being distributed into their respective sections.
The price is two extra pages, compared to the compact version. https://ietf.vendo.no/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-table-wide-col.txt Using "Req'd" as the table header get one of those pages back. https://ietf.vendo.no/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-table-medium-col.txt The support for communicating which elements having no limit to their number are also lost, unless we put in '0..n', '1..n', 'No *', 'Yes *', or something ABNF-like ('*', '1*') in the yes/no column for those few special elements. Another option is of course to spell it out after the table, see below. Here are the variants, for comparison. +==============+===+=============================+ | Element name | # | Content | +==============+===+=============================+ | dkim | * | DKIM authentication result, | | | | see Section 2.1.1.11. | +--------------+---+-----------------------------+ | spf | | SPF authentication result, | | | | see Section 2.1.1.12. | +--------------+---+-----------------------------+ +==============+==========+=============================+ | Element name | Required | Content | +==============+==========+=============================+ | dkim | No | DKIM authentication result, | | | | see Section 2.1.1.11. | +--------------+----------+-----------------------------+ | spf | No | SPF authentication result, | | | | see Section 2.1.1.12. | +--------------+----------+-----------------------------+ +==============+=======+=============================+ | Element name | Req'd | Content | +==============+=======+=============================+ | dkim | No | DKIM authentication result, | | | | see Section 2.1.1.11. | +--------------+-------+-----------------------------+ | spf | No | SPF authentication result, | | | | see Section 2.1.1.12. | +--------------+-------+-----------------------------+ The maximum number of "dkim" elements is unbounded. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
