On Monday, March 12, 2012 04:22:38 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:14 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting > > > > So is "all" now all recognized tags (so to get all recognized tags one > > would ask for "all" and to get everything recognized or not one would > > need to ask for "all" and "unrecognized") or all tags recognized and > > unrecognized (and to get only all the recognized tags they'd have to be > > individually specified)? > > "all" would now include reports for signatures seen by Verifiers that don't > understand at least one tag, plus anything else in the list we've defined > as possible events of interest. > > What problem does asking for unrecognized tags solve? I don't think > > either of those are ideal. > > We could also remove the default, making "rr" mandatory so that an > implementer has to specify explicitly what report types are of interest.
That seems somewhat orthogonal to unrecognized tags. If we add unrecognized tags, that's the default? I think unrecognized tags probably make sense so this draft doesn't have to be updated for each new tag that gets identified, but I'm still not understanding how it contributes to resolution of the discuss. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
