> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:43 PM
> To: [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03.txt
>
> New version (-03) has been submitted for
> draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03.txt.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03.txt
>
> Diff from previous version:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03
<participant>
Going over the diff, I spot the following:
1. Introduction:
s/use extend/extend/
s/fail to authenticate/fail evaluation/
3.1. New ARF Feedback Type
s/once if it/once if it is/ (or just "once if")
s/3.2.1 is OPTIONAL, MUST NOT/3.2.1. It is OPTIONAL, but MUST NOT/
3.2.3. Optional For DKIM Reports
Move the descriptive paragraph to the end of the section rather than
the beginning.
B.1. Example Use of ARF Extension Headers
What was the reason for replacing the example that was there?
Delivered-To isn't a known header field and should be deleted.
The Received-SPF line isn't properly wrapped. Also since SPF is
planning to switch to
Authentication-Results, it should possibly be removed as it's redundant
to the line
below it anyway.
Change all the example domain names to end in "example", or be
specifically "example.com",
"example.net", or "example.org".
The example is missing a MIME-Version header field.
In the first MIME part, "(GMT)" should probably be preceded by a space.
I'm not sure what "Content-Disposition: inline" means for the parts of
an ARF message.
</participant>
Everyone else that weighed in, please review the new version and comment.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
