This one is also correct.
It appears that Eliot Lear <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >Dear Authors and DMARC group, > >In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is >that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in >the next month unless given good cause not to do so. This is a >clarification as to which gzip spec should be used. > >Eliot > > >*Status: Reported >Type: Technical >Publication Format(s) : TEXT* >Reported By: Cris van Pelt >Date Reported: 2018-05-28 > >Section 7.2.1.1 says: > >The aggregate data MUST be an XML file that SHOULD be subjected to >GZIP compression. > >It should say: > >The aggregate data MUST be an XML file that SHOULD be subjected to >GZIP compression (described in [RFC1952]). > >Notes: > >The term "GZIP compression" is not defined in the text. To clarify, >maintain compatibility with future (potentially incompatible) gzip >versions, and to bring the document in line with other RFCs (e.g. 3712, >6713, 6968), a reference to RFC 1952 ("GZIP file format specification >version 4.3") should be added. > >This is assuming RFC 1952 was the author's intent. > >-=-=-=-=-=- >[Alternative: text/html] >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >[Attachment type=application/pgp-signature, name=OpenPGP_signature] >-=-=-=-=-=- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
