On Thu 31/Dec/2020 18:27:26 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
Before we do that I think we should revisit whether we have one reporting draft
or two.
That issue only touches ticket #55 because it's the only one which called for
altering the I-D's text. Also having a -01 beside -00 is irrelevant to the
question.
Discussing the split deserves its own ticket, IMHO.
Best
Ale
On Thu, 31 Dec 2020, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Thu 24/Dec/2020 10:35:10 +0100 Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Thu 24/Dec/2020 03:39:03 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
I Believe I agree with the current version, but can someone post what we
think is the final text?
I posted it here:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting
I don't think the text is final, though. Besides minor tweaks in the first
paragraphs of Section 3, the whole discussion about external destinations
has to be stroked and replaced with a reference to aggregate reporting.
I removed duplicated text and adjusted references. Diffs available here:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-00&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/main/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting.txt
If the WG agrees, I'd post that as -01 and close ticket #55.
Best
Ale
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
