On Thu 18/Aug/2022 07:30:54 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 5:02 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> said:Still no hat!I was under the impression that we all agreed that we're not going to change the failure reporting spec other than by providing better examples.
Changing the spec would be, for example, to allow multiple feedback-report entities rather than requiring multiple ARF reports about a single message.
Fixing typos and inaccuracies is minimal maintenance.
With that in mind, I cannot imagine why we would screw around inventing new IANA registries. We didn't have them in 7489. What's different now?I believe the intent is to have a failure reporting type of "dmarc", which RFC 6591 doesn't currently have in its list of known failure types. This is what I believe Alessandro proposed as a way to introduce that value.
Beside fixing "dmark", I think the doc needs an updates="6591". I committed these fixes to Github. See attached diff.
Best Ale --
<<< text/html; charset=utf-8; name="Diff_draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-04.txt_-_draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-04.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
