> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting > > Absent a compelling reason (and I see no compelling reason), I think > altering the definition of all is a mistake. Any future drafts that add > new tags can update this one to extend the list off allowable tags (and > thus the definition of all). I'd leave unknown tags out.
I think if that's the case, then "all" changes meanings depending on the version being implemented, and that's begging for either a "v=" tag in the _report record, or the removal of "all" and no default so the full set has to be listed explicitly. Given the choice, I'd opt for the latter. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
