On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote:
> While I wait for Bron's confirmation that my understanding matches his > (see email from yesterday), on Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Seth Blank < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> . . .text for . . . arc.closest-fail . . . >> > > I'm uncomfortable with the terminology implied by the term > "arc.closest-fail". I think that it is more "ams.closest-fail" or > "arc.ams-broken". AMS is expected to not verify except in the most recent > ARC set. Doing so is not in any way a "failure" and has no bearing on the > validity of the ARC chain (as documented in the cv parameter). Opinions > regarding a replacement term? > I would prefer "arc.*" to "ams.*", because all of the registered examples name the protocol from which the information is being taken. But the text describing "ptype" allows for either, so it's only a preference. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
