I wouldn't be concerned about extra pages. If you feel comfortable with this, please submit the PR. It looks good to me.
-- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel K. <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 4:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Proposal for new prose describing the aggregate > report XML > > On 1/9/25 18:44, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > How about this? > > > > > +==============+==========+========+=============================+ > > | Element name | Required | Unique | Content | > > > > > +==============+==========+========+=============================+ > > Unexpectedly, this did not cause any extra pages to be required for the > output: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ietf.vendo.no/draft-ietf-dmarc- > aggregate-reporting-table-four-col.txt__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!A9- > KvsoA4QIstU8WOW9mhpMO8BAfdZquQgiR2WWUZiyRWDcyqfZ_1J91PXBnx > AMnyw3cCcCiDymhkxYF6v4k$ > > Given that only 4 of the 13 tables have one element each that can repeat, I > think it's overkill to add this as a separate column. > > For consistency, I discarded the option of omitting the column from the tables > that only have "Yes" as the value for all elements. > > > Daniel K. > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
