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

Reply via email to