> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03.txt > > On 10/09/2011 02:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting > Format Working Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse > > Report Format > > Author(s) : Hilda L. Fontana > > Filename : draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03.txt
Just for the sake of being pedantic, -04 is current. > ... > > I think this is much better, but still a few nits: > > para 2.2 (I think) also needs to list FWS as an imported definition. It > is listed in 3.2 as imported from DKIM. I agree; moving this to 2.2 is neater. Good catch. > para 3.2.3: I think for DKIM-Canonicalized-Header and > DKIM-Canonicalized-Body, instead of saying they can't include redacted > data, it should to be "SHOULD be included unless inclusion would > involved redacted data in which case they MUST NOT be included." I > don't think these fields make sense under any circumstances once they > have been redacted. That makes sense. Also, this paragraph is incorrectly indented. Looks like it needs to be moved outside the <list> element. > para 3.2.5: I think this needs rewording. Current: > > > SPF-DNS MUST appear once for every query to an SPF record that was > > done, to enable the reporting of included fields and where they came > > from. The ABNF in Section 4 changes; see below. > > proposed: > > > SPF-DNS MUST appear once for every SPF record used to obtain the SPF > > result. Looks like this one got included in -04. > para 8.1: The reference to [MAIL] to use RFC 2822 should be updated to > 5322. Ditto. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
