On 7/30/24 22:31, John R. Levine wrote: > If you're willing to futz with the markdown, pull requests with proposed > changes would be great.
I've worked through the dmarcbis and failure reporting drafts and here's the result. https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/pull/154 https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/pull/5 I propose to remove the Examples from failure reporting in its entirety and expanding with a new example in dmarcbis. That way dmarcbis can focus on all aspects of configuration and give all examples, while the companion drafts can focus on specification and implementation details of aggregate and failure reports. I collected a few questions along the way, and I'll follow up with those as soon as I've sorted them out in my head and are able to ask them in a comprehensible way. Here's a rundown of the remaining points from my initial email. > On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Daniel K. wrote: >> 4) This warning text is sometimes shown even if Handled earlier. >> 5) Overlap in the examples of dmarcbis and failure-reporting Will be resolved if both pull requests are accepted. >> 6) Inconsistent requirements for validating third party report consumers. I propose to change this to a MUST in the above dmarcbis pull-request. >> 7) Formal definition >> >> "Keyword" is no longer referenced, and the note about it being imported >> from RFC 5321 can be dropped. I've included a commit to remove it. >> 8) The txt versions are hard to read >> >> Due to: (#identifiers) interspersed throughout the text This is an artifact of the txt output format, as far as I can tell. Maybe there's an option to turn it off, but I have not looked for it. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
