It appears that Brotman, Alex <alex_brot...@comcast.com> said: >There were a few errata for the aggregate reporting. I wanted to confirm with >the list that these are still valid. > >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5440 :: I thought it had been determined >the ";" was not necessary.
It was required in 7489 but not in the cleaned up ABNF we have now. Since the examples in 7489 were missing the semicolon this was adjusting the spec to agree with reality. >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6485 :: We've since replaced this, so I >don't believe this is relevant. The new grammar makes the abgle brackets optional so we've addressed it. >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5774 :: There were a number of edits for >clarification to this portion of the document. The "otherwise specified" >language is no >longer there, and I believe all concerns have been addressed for this portion. I think you're right, but checking that schema makes one's eyes glaze. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
