Hi Todd and John, Thank you for your replies. We’ve fixed the nits pointed out by John and noted his approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9989
We have one additional question regarding "RFC5322.From”. The current value for dmarc in the "Email Authentication Methods" registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml#email-auth-methods> cites 5322bis, while this document uses "RFC5322.From” throughout. IANA registry: The domain portion of the [RFC-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-12].From header field Currently in document: The domain portion of the RFC5322.From header field Is RFC 5322 or 5322bis preferred? If 5322bis is preferred, this document will be paused and moved with Cluster C540. —Files — XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.xml Output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.pdf Diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-lastdiff.html (last version to this one) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this) Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On May 15, 2026, at 11:49 AM, Todd Herr <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the official record, I concur with John's two minor items here. > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 2:49 PM John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > I went through and found two minor items. I checked with Todd who agrees > with them. Other than that, ready to go. > > In 3.2.17, "PSD's policy" should instead be "PSO's policy". > > In B.2.2, the reference to RFC6591 reports should be to RFC9991 reports. > > I made a pull request if you want to use it. > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > On Wed, 13 May 2026, Alanna Paloma wrote: > > > Hello Todd and John, > > > > We have merged the updates. > > > > Additionally, we have further updated the ABNF in Section 4.8, as the > > previously suggested update was 1 character over the 72-character limit. > > > > Current: > > dmarc-urilist = (dmarc-uri / obs-dmarc-uri) > > *(*WSP "," *WSP (dmarc-uri / obs-dmarc-uri)) > > > > Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let us > > know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for publication. > > We consider this your final assent that the document is ready for > > publication. To request changes or approve your RFC for publication, please > > reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on > > this message need to see your approval. > > > > XML file: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.xml > > > > Output files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989.pdf > > > > Comprehensive diff file of the text: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9989-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9989 > > > > Thank you, > > > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On May 12, 2026, at 11:22 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> *****IMPORTANT***** > >> > >> Updated 2026/05/12 > >> > >> RFC Author(s): > >> -------------- > >> > >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. > >> > >> AUTH48 is being handled in GitHub as part of the GitHub pilot test (see > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test). > >> > >> Your document is available for review at: > >> https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9989 > >> > >> Please do the following: > >> > >> a) accept your invitations to join the repo as collaborators. > >> > >> b) see the README for details on the AUTH48 process: > >> https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9989/blob/Approved/README.md > >> > >> c) review and resolve the issues: > >> https://github.com/rfc-editor/AUTH48-rfc9989/issues > >> > >> Once the content is stable in GitHub, we will provide the updated XML file > >> and the output files for review and approval. > >> > >> You and your coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > >> your approval. > >> > >> Once the document has been reviewed and approved by all of the authors, > >> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > >> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> > >> Thank you for your cooperation, > >> > >> RFC Editor > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC 9989 (draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-41) > >> > >> Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and > >> Conformance (DMARC) > >> Author(s) : T. Herr, Ed., J. Levine, Ed. > >> WG Chair(s) : Barry Leiba, Seth Blank > >> Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Charles Eckel > >> > >> > > > > > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for > Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > > -- > Todd > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
