Would these be more helpful submitted as PRs? Seems like we're creating a middle step here that blocks on Alex re-typing all of this.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 4:00 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > In Section 2.1.1.4, the criterion for defining periods is still not > defined. > I'd re-propose what I wrote last December: > > The start and end of reporting periods are chosen to obtain a > partition > of time, such that each instant of time belongs to exactly one period. > Empty reports must not be sent. > This seems like a wordy way of saying "Reporting periods MUST NOT overlap, and reports MUST NOT be empty." > In Section 2.1.1.11, *If validation is attempted for any DKIM signature, > the > results MUST be included* is an excessive requirement. > Why? Are you arguing for "SHOULD"? If so, what's a situation where you might not comply? -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org