Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16.txt

2018-08-01 Thread Seth Blank
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Ken O'Driscoll wrote: > > Apologies if this has already been caught by others. > > Just spotted some small typos in section 8. Was reading this specific > section in connection with something GDPR (the fun!) related. > > 8. Privacy Considerations > >The

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16.txt

2018-08-01 Thread Ken O'Driscoll
Apologies if this has already been caught by others. Just spotted some small typos in section 8. Was reading this specific section in connection with something GDPR (the fun!) related. 8. Privacy Considerations The Authenticated Received Chain provides a verifiable record of the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16

2018-08-01 Thread Seth Blank
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:53 AM, A. Schulze wrote: > - section-2.1 introduce "AMDM" defined later in section-3 > Great catch. Based on Dave Crocker's feedback, we've defined the term "Authentication Assessment" and moved the entire second paragraph of 2.1 into this definition, which ends up

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16

2018-08-01 Thread A. Schulze
Hello WG, Seth pushed me to really /read/ the whole draft, thanks! I noted the following points that may or may not be so important... - section-2.1 introduce "AMDM" defined later in section-3 - I read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16 in section-3, the links point

Re: [dmarc-ietf] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02

2018-08-01 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Tue 31/Jul/2018 15:10:21 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >>> Do you have a suggestion for alternative text? >> >> Say: >> >> In that case, if the producer intent is not to harm or mislead, the trust >> in this field's content would be proportional to the estimated quality of >>