On Thursday, July 14, 2022 11:26:05 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:44 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > On July 13, 2022 9:51:31 PM UTC, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, John Levine wrote: > > >> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> said: > > >>> Speaking as an AD now, you should expect me to complain about the > > > > "SHOULD" > > > > >>> in Section 4.7. > > > > > >I went through and looked at all of the "must" and "should", in both > > > > upper and lower case. > > > > [snip] > > > > >You can see the text diffs here: > > > > > >https://www.taugh.com/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-13-from-2.diff.html > > > > > >There's a github pull request with the changes. > > > > These all look like reasonable changes to me. > > I've merged John's pull request and created rev-13 in github, but due to > the blackout for the upcoming meeting we can't publish this rev until after > July 23.
Since we have some time .... DMARCbis should also obsolete RFC 9091 as it's functionality is inherent in the DMARCbis design. This should also be mentioned in Section 7. My thought is that a sentence at the end of 7.3 should be sufficient. Perhaps, "The DNS Tree Walk also incorporates PSD policy discovery, which was introduced in RFC 9091." Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
