It appears that Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> said: >Hey folks > >I believe I have mostly addressed Barry's concerns that he sent to the list >last week. > >There was a note about two of the policy override options (section 2.1.5), >"forwarded", and "trusted_forwarder". They are currently next to each other >in the draft, >though, I don't believe we need both. If someone else believes there is some >difference that can be more properly illustrated, I'm happy to take that >language. >Otherwise, I'd likely remove "forwarded", and just leave the other with its >current description. > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/
I agree that forwarded and trusted_forwarder are redundant In the subject line exxample in 2.6.2, the Report-ID is not a ridtxt. That example was wrong in 7489. In 6.2 it says there is no PII in aggregate reports. If a domain has few enough users, there can in practice be PII but I wouldn't worry about it, since that's an issue for every use of the domain, not just in DMARC. I think the XML schema is OK, but as always more people looking at it would be better. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
