Several possible layouts for the tables were discussed throughout the development of this series. None of the alternatives got huge support from anyone, so in the end I went for my preferred layout with the '#' title leaving more room for the description column.
https://ietf.vendo.no/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-final.txt, there's also an html version. I can prepare a PR converting this into any of the other alternative table layouts I've shown throughout, should consensus on a preferred layout emerge. Please read the PR for details on the steps taken to assemble the information that ended up in the new version. Going forward I expect some editing effort to clean up the parts that are still rough. * This version is not as 'nice' as some others I've shown during development. This is due to table layout issues with xml2rfc. I hope the RFC Editor will fix this as the tables, if reformatted, will actually fit on one page. * Contents of the "record" element can use a bit of tidying up regarding tuples, and uniqueness. Some of that information seems to be duplicate wrt. the instruction in the "row" element. Some pondering, and rewording by a native speaker may be necessary. * Whats in a name. dmarcbis as well as aggregate reporting use "aggregate report" and "aggregate feedback report" interchangably. I believe the longer version is the correct one, and that we should update most places, if not all around, including in the abbrev name. This has been quite a ride and a learning experience. I'm sure I've left out some detail I've thought about during this, that I'll almost immediately remember after sending this email, or on reading replies. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
