On just this one and one point below: On 02.12.2024 21:26, Eliot Lear wrote:
I ended up marking it "Hold for Update" because, as Billy Crystal might say, mostly invalid means a little valid ;-)5229 and 5773: optional elements <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5229> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5773>These two have been addressed by adding minOccurs and maxOccurs explicitly in the XML schema in aggregate-report.5229 is partly invalid by saying:All but "sp" have a default value [...]The default value of "sp" is explained here: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7489#page-20><https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-36#section-4.7-4.18.1>Reject
From an ISE perspective, once the DMARC drafts are out, I don't expect to verify ANY technical errata on RFC 7489.
Eliot
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
