I think C.9 needs to list errata that resulted in some change to the document, but not others. So we don't need to list the rejected ones, but the HFDU ones should probably be discussed.
-MSK On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 12:23 PM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually there are more. Please review. > > Eliot > On 02.12.2024 20:32, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 5:20 AM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Could the DMARCbis authors and working group please review the now eight >> reported errata against RFC 7489 and provide recommendations to the >> Independent Submissions Editor on how to address each. Please see >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7489&rec_status=2&presentation=records >> . >> >> Eliot >> > > Hi Eliot, > > Is the summary in Appendix C.9 sufficient for your purposes? > > -MSK > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
