The only thing I'd add is that in discussion with Seth Blank, I've implemented
the following format (for now) in an open PR for OpenDMARC that implements this:
<policy_evaluated>
<disposition>delivered</disposition>
<dkim>fail</dkim>
<spf>fail <comment>source.ip=10.0.0.1</comment></spf>
<reason>
<type>local_policy</type>
<comment>
arc=[status] as[N].d=dN.example.com as[N].s=sN ..
as[1].d=d1.example.com as[1].s=s1
</comment>
</reason>
</policy_evaluated>
-mark
From: dmarc <[email protected]> on behalf of Peter M. Goldstein
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 11:02:54 AM
To: Kurt Andersen (b)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: DMARC report format syntax error in ARC draft-10
section 9.3
Thanks for capturing. I agree it makes sense to figure out ticket #16
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket) first.
Best,
Peter
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Peter M. Goldstein
<[email protected]> wrote:
Kurt,
Re: -12, it doesn't appear to capture the feedback in the email Mark Eissler
sent to the list on 2/27. There was also no on-list reply to his email that I
saw, so I wanted to re-raise the issue. His email is included below.
I've captured this point in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/18.. I
have no objections per se, but would like to know whether the group thinks that
the entire section should be removed into its own document (see
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/16#ticket).
--Kurt
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
