IANA, Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-diff.html.
1) Please update the description of "XML" for dmarc-2.0 at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/dmarc-2.0.txt> in the “IETF XML Registry” as follows. Old: XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification. New: XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. 2) Please update the following comments in the template for dmarc-2.0 at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema/dmarc-2.0.xsd> in the “IETF XML Registry” as follows. a) add a comma Old: The policy actions specified by p, sp and np in the DMARC Policy Record. New: The policy actions specified by p, sp, and np in the DMARC Policy Record. b) update the citations and remove “the" Old: The method used to discover the DMARC Policy Record used during evaluation. The available values are "psl" and "treewalk", where "psl" is the method from [@?RFC7489] and the "treewalk" is described in [@I-D.ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis]. New: The method used to discover the DMARC Policy Record used during evaluation. The available values are "psl" and "treewalk", where "psl" is the method from RFC 7489 and "treewalk" is described in RFC 9989. c) add periods Old: Method used to find/obtain DMARC policy … Whether testing mode was declared in the DMARC Record … Values for Testing mode attached to policy … Taking into account everything else in the record, the results of applying DMARC. If alignment fails and the policy applied does not match the domain's configured policy, the reason element MUST be specified … The RFC5321.MailFrom domain New: Method used to find/obtain DMARC policy. … Whether testing mode was declared in the DMARC Record. … Values for Testing mode attached to policy. … Taking into account everything else in the record, the results of applying DMARC. If alignment fails and the policy applied does not match the domain's configured policy, the reason element MUST be specified. … The RFC5321.MailFrom domain. d) update the punctuation and capitalization around the citation Old: The connecting IP. IPv4address or IPv6address as defined in RFC 3986 section 3.2.2 New: The connecting IP. IPv4address or IPv6address as defined in RFC 3986, Section 3.2.2. e) update the punctuation around the citations Old: DKIM verification result, see RFC 8601 Section 2.7.1. … SPF verification result, see RFC 8601 Section 2.7.2. New: DKIM verification result; see RFC 8601. Section 2.7.1. … SPF verification result; see RFC 8601, Section 2.7.2. f) update the text Old: One record per (IP, result, IDs Auths) tuples New: One record (IP, result, IDs Auths) per tuple Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On May 15, 2026, at 11:05 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > We have removed the extra declaration to match your XML file and noted your > approval on the AUTH48 status page: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9990 > > We will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA > updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication process. > > —Files— > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes > side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-lastdiff.html (last version to > this one) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On May 15, 2026, at 9:25 AM, Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> See attached. There was an extra declaration in the XML samples in Section >> 5. That is meant to illustrate two portions of the same report, so the >> extra declaration shouldn't be there. >> >> Otherwise, I think that's it. >> >> -- >> Alex Brotman >> Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy >> Comcast >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 4:28 PM >> To: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9990 >> <draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-32> for your review >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> Thank you for your reply with the updated XML file. We have updated the >> other files accordingly. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.xml__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR523GWzgg$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.txt__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR6PAGPCrw$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR7tRC8wag$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.pdf__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR4byW0_qA$ >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-diff.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR6NPXGfgg$ >> (comprehensive diff) >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-auth48diff.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR6dCeMS6Q$ >> (AUTH48 changes) >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR5KthP8qQ$ >> (AUTH48 changes side by side) >> >> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates >> you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published >> as an RFC. >> >> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page >> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9990__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EN_l50OxNwfIKFaZNMkLM2kV1A3bmtH6ZOIzng0hRIROsGXniDKysl1-e2TWwIqG6511VV9ERqjR1Opaw_RAzR4u6LRgCg$ >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >> >>> On May 13, 2026, at 5:52 PM, Brotman, Alex >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Inline below, and XML attached. >>> >>> NOTE: My corporate mail system may have mangled the outbound message >>> content with a URL-wrapper. If this has happened, let me know, and I will >>> figure out another method. >>> -- >>> Alex Brotman >>> Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 5:25 PM >>> To: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9990 >>> <draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-32> for your review >>> >>> Authors, >>> >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>> the following questions, which are also in the source file. >>> >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the >>> title) for use on >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi16Z6NSI$ >>> . --> >>> >>> ATB: Added, replicated RFC7489 >>> >>> 2) <!--[rfced] FYI: We added the following sentence to the end of the >>> Abstract as the Obsolete status was absent (this is now consistent with the >>> companion documents). >>> >>> Current: >>> This document obsoletes RFC 7489. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Accepted >>> >>> 3) <!--[rfced] We note that the errata for this document is addressed in >>> RFC-to-be 9989. May we add a sentence in Section 2 ("Document >>> Status") that mentions the errata has been addressed in the companion >>> document? >>> >>> Original: >>> This document, in part, along with RFCs 9989 and 9991, obsoletes >>> and replaces DMARC [RFC7489]. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> This document, in part, along with [RFC9989] and [RFC9991], obsoletes >>> and replaces DMARC [RFC7489]. Note that errata for this document >>> has been addressed as described in [RFC9989]. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Added >>> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] We note that "psl" is not used in RFC 7489. Please review >>> the citation below and let us know how it may be updated. >>> >>> Current: >>> * "discovery_method" can have the value "psl" or "treewalk", where >>> "psl" is the method from [RFC7489] and "treewalk" is described in >>> [RFC9989]. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: In RFC7489, Section A.6.1 describes the Public Suffix List. Section >>> 3.2 describes how to use it. Would you like me to add a reference to that >>> section in the discovery_method, or some other reference? >>> >>> 5) <!--[rfced] The following text is not a complete sentence. Please review >>> and let us know how it may be updated. >>> >>> Original: >>> One record per (IP, result, authentication identifiers) tuples. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> There is one record (IP, result, authentication identifiers) >>> per tuples. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: XML adjusted >>> >>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the use of "extensibly". Is the intended >>> meaning perhaps "potentially" or "by extension"? >>> >>> Current: >>> The second report will be for example.com and contain multiple >>> "record" elements, one for example.com and one for foo.example.com >>> (and extensibly, other "record" elements for subdomains that >>> likewise did not have an explicit DMARC Policy Record). >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: "by extension", adjusted in XML. >>> >>> 7) <!--[rfced] How may we rephrase "a [RFC5322] message" to avoid using RFC >>> 5322 as an adjective? >>> >>> Original: >>> The message generated by the Mail Receiver MUST be a [RFC5322] >>> message formatted per [RFC2045]. >>> >>> Perhaps A: >>> The message generated by the Mail Receiver MUST be as >>> described in [RFC5322] and formatted per [RFC2045]. >>> >>> or >>> Perhaps B: >>> The message generated by the Mail Receiver MUST be a message that >>> contains subaddressing [RFC5322] and is formatted per [RFC2045]. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Option A, XML adjusted. >>> >>> 8) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update this sentence as >>> follows? >>> >>> Original: >>> When accepting the data, that's likely in a situation where it's not >>> yet noticed, or a one-off experience. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> When accepting the data, it's likely that the duplicate data has not >>> yet been noticed and is a one-off experience. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: XML adjusted >>> >>> 9) <!--[rfced] Would it be correct to say that the Domain Owner should >>> consider using a shorter "domain name" for clarity? >>> >>> Current: >>> If the length of the DNS query is excessively long (Step 4 above), >>> the Domain Owner may need to reconsider the domain being used to be >>> shorter or reach out to another party that may allow for a >>> shorter DNS label. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> If the DNS query length is excessively long (see Step 4), the >>> Domain Owner may need to consider using a shorter domain name or >>> coordinate with another party that may allow for a shorter DNS >>> label. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Adjusted in XML >>> >>> 10) <!--[rfced] XML snippets >>> >>> a) Should the "</feedback>" closing tag be added after "</extension>" >>> in the first XML example in Section 5 so that the XML parses, or is this >>> meant to be a continuing example? >>> >>> Original: >>> <feedback xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dmarc-2.0" >>> xmlns:ext="URI for an extension-supplied name space"> >>> ... >>> <policy_published> >>> <domain>example.com</domain> >>> <p>quarantine</p> >>> <sp>none</sp> >>> <testing>n</testing> >>> </policy_published> >>> <extension> >>> <ext:arc-override>never</ext:arc-override> >>> </extension> >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> <feedback xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dmarc-2.0" >>> xmlns:ext="URI for an extension-supplied name space"> >>> ... >>> <policy_published> >>> <domain>example.com</domain> >>> <p>quarantine</p> >>> <sp>none</sp> >>> <testing>n</testing> >>> </policy_published> >>> <extension> >>> <ext:arc-override>never</ext:arc-override> >>> </extension> >>> </feedback> >>> >>> b) Should "<feedback xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dmarc-2.0" >>> xmlns:ext="URI for an extension-supplied name space">" be added to the >>> following XML snippet? Is a closing tag unnecessary because this is a >>> continuing example, or should one be added? >>> >>> Current: >>> <record> >>> <row> >>> ... >>> </row> >>> <identifiers> >>> ... >>> </identifiers> >>> <auth_results> >>> ... >>> </auth_results> >>> <ext:arc-results> >>> ... >>> </ext:arc-results> >>> </record> >>> <record> >>> ... >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> <feedback xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dmarc-2.0" >>> xmlns:ext="URI for an extension-supplied name space"> >>> ... >>> <record> >>> <row> >>> ... >>> </row> >>> <identifiers> >>> ... >>> </identifiers> >>> <auth_results> >>> ... >>> </auth_results> >>> <ext:arc-results> >>> ... >>> </ext:arc-results> >>> </record> >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: This is meant to be a partial report, no need to add extra tags. >>> >>> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI: Per IANA's note, we have updated the registrant >>> contact from "IETF" to "IESG" in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. >>> >>> Original: >>> Registrant Contact: Internet Engineering Task Force ([email protected]) >>> >>> Current: >>> Registrant Contact: The IESG ([email protected]) >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Appreciated >>> >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated the dates for the W3C reference entries >>> from "2 May 2001" to "28 October 2004" to match the most current version of >>> the two W3C Recommendations. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Thank you >>> >>> 13) <!--[rfced] In the XML schema in Appendix A, we updated "[@?RFC7489]" >>> to "RFC 7489" and "[@I-D.ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis]" to "RFC 9989". We also made >>> a few punctuation updates for consistency. Please let us know of any >>> objections. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Looks good, thank you >>> >>> 14) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have alphabetized the names listed in the >>> Acknowledgements section. We believe that was the intent as only two were >>> out of order. Let us know if you prefer the original order. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Thank you >>> >>> 15) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following >>> abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style >>> Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully >>> to ensure correctness. >>> >>> UUID = Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Thank you >>> >>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>> online >>> Style Guide >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi_j4tw6Q$ >>> > >>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >>> >>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >>> still be reviewed as a best practice. >>> --> >>> >>> ATB: Noted >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Alanna Paloma and Karen Moore >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>> On May 13, 2026, at 2:23 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2026/05/13 >>> >>> RFC Author(s): >>> -------------- >>> >>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>> >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>> available as listed in the FAQ >>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi0DWiY2Z$ >>> ). >>> >>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>> your approval. >>> >>> Planning your review >>> --------------------- >>> >>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>> >>> * RFC Editor questions >>> >>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>> follows: >>> >>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>> >>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>> >>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>> >>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>> >>> * Content >>> >>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>> - contact information >>> - references >>> >>> * Copyright notices and legends >>> >>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>> (TLP – >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi7rj_Psj$ >>> ). >>> >>> * Semantic markup >>> >>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi86jJHt2$ >>> >. >>> >>> * Formatted output >>> >>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>> >>> >>> Submitting changes >>> ------------------ >>> >>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >>> include: >>> >>> * your coauthors >>> >>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >>> >>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>> >>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>> list: >>> >>> * More info: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi5B3Oaax$ >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi8CgSMB_$ >>> >>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and >>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>> >>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>> >>> An update to the provided XML file >>> — OR — >>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>> >>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>> >>> OLD: >>> old text >>> >>> NEW: >>> new text >>> >>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>> >>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >>> >>> >>> Approving for publication >>> -------------------------- >>> >>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>> >>> >>> Files >>> ----- >>> >>> The files are available here: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.xml__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGiypzt3fh$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi7iaikwp$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.pdf__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGix9fXmyI$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990.txt__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi68AOGVY$ >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-diff.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi0PlWrIB$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-rfcdiff.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGix0igvda$ >>> (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9990-xmldiff1.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi53Wubok$ >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9990__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BS5MOD0ZHlii7PntyZRIxqqdTFNAsl7YDHwMxjGHKrqhTz3QFEAN9h9EJ8WbAV1LLhx8DohCBAS0Ua1mEBMGi-213V2Z$ >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9990 (draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-32) >>> >>> Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and >>> Conformance (DMARC) Aggregate Reporting >>> Author(s) : A. Brotman, Ed. >>> WG Chair(s) : Barry Leiba, Seth Blank >>> Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Charles Eckel >>> >>> >>> -- >>> auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>> <rfc9990.xml> >> >> <rfc9990.xml> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
