It won't fall to the errata process. Real errors can still be corrected in AUTH48.
Barry On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 12:50 PM Todd Herr <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 3:08 PM Sean Whalen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm the maintainer and original developer of the CheckDMARC and ParseDMARC >> tools, but this is my first time being active with anything IETF, so please >> let me know if there is a better place to address this. While reading >> draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-41, I noticed that section C.7. Report Generator >> Recommendations says: >> >> This document in Section 4.6 says: >> >> A report **SHOULD** be sent to each listed URI provided in the DMARC >> Policy Record. >> >> >> However, section 4.6. DMARC Reporting URIs only says: >> >> [RFC3986] defines a syntax for identifying a resource. The DMARC mechanism >> uses this as the format by which a Domain Owner or PSO specifies the >> destination(s) for the two report types that are supported. The DMARC Policy >> Record format allows for a list of these URIs to be provided, with each URI >> separated by commas (ASCII 0x2c). >> >> A formal definition is provided in Section 4.8. > > > Hi Sean. > > The document in question has long since been submitted to the RFC Editors at > the IETF. > > If they don't catch this as part of their work prior to final publication, > then it'll fall to the RFC Errata process after the document has been > published - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rpc-errata-process/ > > -- > Todd > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
