That's fine.  I'm just looking to properly mark the errata that exist.

Eliot

On 02.12.2024 23:04, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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) <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> 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) <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> 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
        
<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 --dmarc@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email todmarc-le...@ietf.org

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to