I'll go over this in more detail and post substantive comments sometime in
the next day or so, but at first glance, a crucial change in 5.1 was missed
and the draft language still makes a normative change to 7601 ("data SHOULD
be added to the normal A-R content") to include data the WG consensus was
should not be in the A-R (like smtp.client_id), instead of adding this data
to the AAR where the WG consensus was that it does belong.On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > I've just pushed a new version (-09) of the draft which incorporates the > following changes: > > # v09 > > * Edits related to Alexey Melnikov's 2017-07-25 message > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TJnWqN1HIFpHS0Nhtxq0qnP6EhA > * Some changes in response to Dave Crocker's 2017-07-28 message > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kZUVpzuOtODrloHfYSl1U1tUSe4 > * Remove all of section 9.4 except the last paragraph > * Some of Seth's suggestions for section 5.1* incorporated per > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xUUbT15vqoBmH7RraJ_pesrd9z0 > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> There are also htmlized versions available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-09 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-09 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-09 >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
