I'm not sure I understand your comment below.  Are you commenting on the " up 
to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs" ?  That suggests that a message 
receiver (report generator, not report receiver) may have a limit on the number 
of URIs they're willing to send reports to.  If that's your nit, I can make 
that more clear.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orie Steele via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 9:46 AM
> To: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Orie Steele's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-
> 29: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29: No Objection
> 
> 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!BuRISkuxX4W9qRx2GroqLwMI0nyMJzcXyAQnH
> y3LhLzNiTnk6hqDlEiCFKmWWUf7UYdUVhZWDzITjSZ1E_I$
> 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!BuRISkuxX4W9qRx2GroqLwMI0nyMJzcXyAQnH
> y3LhLzNiTnk6hqDlEiCFKmWWUf7UYdUVhZWDzITA-64-NQ$
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for addressing my comments in -29.
> 
> ### Nits
> 
> In -29, the word remaining here is perhaps no longer needed:
> 
> ```
> An attempt MUST be made to deliver an aggregate report to
>    every remaining URI, up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs.
> ```
> 
> I think the intended behavior with the changes from -29 is to attempt to
> deliver to all URIs.
> 
> 

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

Reply via email to