Hi Alex! Thanks for addressing the DISCUSS feedback about references and the COMMENT feedback. I've updated my ballot.
Snipping the email down to the remaining issue ... -----Original Message----- From: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 1:58 PM To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Inline below -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -----Original Message----- > From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 12:12 PM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28: 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!HxEIPOcoWA2n8PybYAw3A4KCs8z31wUqIbwA > v3PqZUQBhwnGbzJjmqn8vDUzeTBpypCRG33AaARj8NZeOdU$ > 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!HxEIPOcoWA2n8PybYAw3A4KCs8z31wUqIbwA > v3PqZUQBhwnGbzJjmqn8vDUzeTBpypCRG33AaARjjDAwBG4$ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [snip] > ** human_result. It appears that there is at least one data element > (human_result per Sections 2.1.1.12 and 2.1.1.13) which is intended to be a > human readable string. Per Section 4 of RFC2277 saying “protocols that > transfer text MUST provide for carrying information about the language of > that text”, what is the approach prescribed by this specification? Should an > xs:lang attribute be added to the human_result element? > I'll be honest that I don't have a preference here. Someone else called this out I believe as well. If others believe it necessary, I will certainly add it to the document. [Roman] In my assessment RFC2277 requires some kind of approach to carry the language information. It's up to the WG, but my recommendation would be to use the built-in schema data type of xs:lang Regards, Roman _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
