This is good. -28 is vastly improved over the version I first reviewed. (The schema could be better, but I understand now why it is not and cannot be.)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, at 14:23, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: > Hi Martin, Tim (cc: dmarc), > > Can you confirm that version -28 is still OK? Several subsections > related to XML elements were added to Section 2 after your review of > -23. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting > > thanks, > Amanda > > On Wed Nov 27 01:42:52 2024, [email protected] wrote: >> I looked. This is fine according to the registration rules. >> >> It's a good schema for the most part; my ARTART review has a few >> gripes, but that has no bearing on its eligibility for registration. >> >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024, at 10:34, David Dong via RT wrote: >> > Dear Tim Bray, Martin Thomson (cc: dmarc WG), >> > >> > As the designated experts for the IETF XML Registry registry, can you >> > review the proposed registration in >> > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-23 for us? Please see >> > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate- >> > reporting/ >> > >> > The due date is December 10th. >> > >> > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, >> > we'll make the registration at: >> > >> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ >> > >> > Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewer, we’ll act on the >> > first response we receive. >> > >> > With thanks, >> > >> > David Dong >> > IANA Services Sr. Specialist _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
