Suggested changes from https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/pull/154, save for one suggestion to change "its" to "it", have been incorporated into branch rev-34, which was committed to github today.
The pull request was closed, as the new branch also incorporates a few updates from other on-list threads. This was noted in the comments closing the pull request. On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 11:02 AM Daniel K. <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > -- Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem Email: [email protected] Phone: 703-220-4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
