I've looked at the changes in the -10 version, and it's much clearer to me, thanks. If I'm asked to review it again it will be "Ready".
Regards Brian On 2012-06-09 16:35, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi Pete, > > On 2012-06-09 16:29, Pete Resnick wrote: >> Brian, >> >> On 6/7/12 8:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>>> S Moonesamy wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Brian Carpenter wrote: >>>>>> Also, RFC4406 states that "Sending domains MAY publish either or both >>>>>> formats" (i.e. spf1 or spf2.0). That being so, I would ideally expect >>>>>> to see nine rows in the results table: >>>>>> >>>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 only >>>>>> SPF RR only, spf2.0 only >>>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 and spf2.0 >>>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 only >>>>>> TXT RR only, spf2.0 only >>>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 and spf2.0 >>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 only >>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf2.0 only >>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 and spf2.0 >>>>>> >>>>> Pete suggests having two tables for each survey: (a) a comparison of >>>>> RRTYPEs, and (b) a comparison of SPF vs. SIDF independent of RRTYPE. >>>>> Would that be sufficient? >>>>> >>> I am looking for clear presentation of the observed data, nothing more, >>> as I do whenever I read a data-based document. As my review stated, >>> I have no problem with the conclusions drawn in the draft. >>> >> I'm afraid you got distracted by Hector's question and didn't answer >> SM's. Please do. > > Sorry - yes, I think those two tables would be fine. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
