Thanks Eric, I've created 
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/issues/32

I'll try to get these sorted this week.

-- 
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 11:08 AM
> To: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-27:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-27: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/state
> ments/handling-ballot-
> positions/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EVGJr7LO0dHhAt1Fir_5rUnZvsgk7EvuVm97YRQ
> FBodOaZlGi6CWcuHnwleFrRXjquHiUjGA1Hg4JZr1PY0$
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
> dmarc-aggregate-
> reporting/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EVGJr7LO0dHhAt1Fir_5rUnZvsgk7EvuVm97YRQ
> FBodOaZlGi6CWcuHnwleFrRXjquHiUjGA1Hg4lRH-Hjo$
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-27
> CC @evyncke
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-
> blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for
> my own education).
> 
> Special thanks to Barry Leiba for the shepherd's write-up including the WG
> consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.
> 
> Please note that Anthony Somerset is the DNS directorate reviewer and you
> may want to consider this dns-dir review as well when it will be available (no
> need to wait for it though):
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
> dmarc-aggregate-
> reporting/reviewrequest/21440/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EVGJr7LO0dHhAt1Fir_5r
> UnZvsgk7EvuVm97YRQFBodOaZlGi6CWcuHnwleFrRXjquHiUjGA1Hg4kZWyYA
> Q$
> 
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> ## DISCUSS (blocking)
> 
> As noted in
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-
> ballot-
> positions/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EVGJr7LO0dHhAt1Fir_5rUnZvsgk7EvuVm97YRQ
> FBodOaZlGi6CWcuHnwleFrRXjquHiUjGA1Hg4Q-mip8c$ , a DISCUSS ballot is
> just a request to have a discussion on the following topics:
> 
> ### Appendix B
> 
> Please do not use RFC 1918 IP addresses such as `192.168.4.4`, but one of
> the documentation prefixes, e.g., "2001:db8::cafe"
> 
> Please use an example FQDN, i.e.,
> s/report_sender@example-
> reporter.com/[email protected]/
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)
> 
> ### Abstract
> 
> It is unclear to me what is meant by `as supported by the receiver`.
> 
> s/replaces [RFC7489]/obsoletes and replaces [RFC7489]/
> 
> ### Section 1
> 
> Suggest repeating the expansion for "DMARC".
> 
> s/to request that receivers/to request that e-mail receivers/ ? (see further)
> 
> ### Section 2
> 
> Suggest to be consistent in the naming "Mail Receivers" (to be preferred) or
> "mail receivers" or "receivers".
> 
> ### Section 2.1.1.8
> 
> What is a `The connecting IP`? I only know about "The connecting IP address"
> also valid for s/source_ip/source_ip_address/ (probably too late to change the
> element name).
> 
> ### Section 2.1.1.10
> 
> Where is "RFC5322.From" defined ? I can guess it of course, but let's be
> accurate.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to