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.-MSKOn 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
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org