On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:27 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Appendix C of RFC8601 goes to some length to discourage the practice of > including all the details that were inputs to the evaluation, specifically > because the result of the evaluation at the border MTA is the only thing > that should matter. I thus have some trouble understanding why "policy.ip" > and "policy.txt" are desirable things to include. And even if that were > not true, I'm concerned that "policy.ip" could be interpreted as an IP > address even though that's manifestly not what this is. > > Related: Section 3 of the draft appears to be commentary about what should go in TXT records, or how things querying DNSxLs should query and interpret TXT results. This doesn't seem to be appropriate for a document about Authentication-Results; it's implementation guidance for MTAs or receiving agents. About the only sentence I see in there that makes sense to include that's relevant to a registration action is the one about encoding non-ASCII content. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
