Removing the editorial fixes which I've incorporated into the recently posted -09, I'm responding inline below to the discussion questions.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Section 4.1.3.3: > > - Is that fist bullet talking about things like "On behalf of"? Also, > what sort of collision is the concern here? > Not the "on behalf of" as much as the practice of taking the address part and putting it into the display name while possibly tweaking the address part to be "invalid". Section 4.2: > > I'm generally unsure about this section. It will eventually (sooner than > later) refer to a number of expired documents. It might be more helpful to > the reader to just summarize the idea behind each approach in a paragraph > rather than forcing the reader to chase down specific expired I-Ds. > I don't see a good way to avoid referring to (eventually) expired I-Ds. That's the best way to catalog the ideas, but I did take your suggestions on rephrasing the intent of some of them into some new wording. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
