Eric, I believe version 28[1] should address your notes, other than the field name (as you noted).
1: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28 Thank you for your comments -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 11:41 AM > To: Éric Vyncke <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-27: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Thanks Eric, I've created https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ietf- > wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate- > reporting/issues/32__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!HnsuJ- > rPfs2Dg7KSeRDrkUmJUDHnOm13KiKhrhFwXqLeiaC0UkCFg4ehhn- > ByxDBNAD1sHolbk5XUWAeDsIs8XTAb1Y$ > > 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]
