On 11/23/24 18:20, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > I can't tell if my comment to -22 made it, so I'll repeat the only > likely interesting point, which was: > > 2.1 says, > > Both the "spf" and "dkim" results may optionally include a > "human_readable" field > > however the Appendis A schema has "human_results"
Actually it is human_result, but the point stands. diff --git a/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting.md b/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting.md index 0aeb76c..de30b40 100755 --- a/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting.md +++ b/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting.md @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ include a "selector" element that was observed during validation. For the the value is one of the results defined in [@!RFC8601] Section 2.7.2. The "dkim" result MUST contain a lower-case string where the value is one of the results defined in [@!RFC8601] Section 2.7.1. Both the "spf" and "dkim" -results may optionally include a "human_readable" field meant for the report +results may optionally include a "human_result" field meant for the report to convey more descriptive information back to the Domain Owner relating to evaluation failures. There MAY exist an optional section for extensions. To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
