Chairs, should we have a ticket to ensure all of the HFDU and Verified errata get listed in Appendix C.9?
-MSK On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 12:36 AM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > On just this one and one point below: > On 02.12.2024 21:26, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > 5229 and 5773: optional elements > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5229> > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5229> > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5773> > <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/rfc7489#page-20> > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-36#section-4.7-4.18.1> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-36#section-4.7-4.18.1> > > Reject > > I ended up marking it "Hold for Update" because, as Billy Crystal might > say, mostly invalid means a little valid ;-) > > From an ISE perspective, once the DMARC drafts are out, I don't expect to > verify ANY technical errata on RFC 7489. > > Eliot > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
