> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5965 (3120) > > So it seems more than a little awkward to shove an ARF fix in here. > Ideally, if we were going to fix it in one of the current drafts it > should be I-D.IETF- MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT, but I guess it's too late > for that. > > I'm going to proceed on the assumption that the errata will eventually > be confirmed and that's sufficient or some was will be found to stuff > it into I- D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT/AS and that I don't need to > directly address it in the SPF draft. I don't see an non-contrived way > to do it.
We can post an erratum for authfailure-report when it publishes to tie it all together. For now I would proceed, and if you feel like adding more explanation would be useful, include it in an appendix. The IESG can make the choice about whether or not that's really needed and ask the RFC Editor to strike the section if not. And in the interim, I'll ask our intrepid AD for guidance. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
