On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:42 AM Todd Herr wrote:
> The text reported in the erratum doesn't really exist in DMARCbis; it's
> been replaced by the DNS Tree Walk (
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30.html#name-dns-tree-walk
> )
>
> Are we to issue an actual update to RFC
Colleagues,
Murray's post on RFC 7489 errata got me thinking that some language
associated with the Tree Walk could stand a bit more clarity.
Section 4.7, DMARC Policy Discovery, starts with the following sentence:
For policy discovery, a DNS Tree Walk starts at the domain found in the
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 1:10 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> Since we're in WGLC here, this erratum is worth consideration. I've
> recommended "Held For Document Update" as the disposition.
>
> My reply to the erratum was:
>
> ===
>
> The algorithm as presented is correct, but I understand this
Since we're in WGLC here, this erratum is worth consideration. I've
recommended "Held For Document Update" as the disposition.
My reply to the erratum was:
===
The algorithm as presented is correct, but I understand this report.
The steps are, paraphrased:
(1) Go get a set of things.
(2)
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:33 PM Barry Leiba wrote:
> Maybe better?:
>
> NEW
> If they can block outgoing or reply DNS messages, they can prevent
> systems from discovering senders' DMARC policies. Recipients will
> then use their local policies for handling mail in the absence of
> DMARC and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:45 PM Barry Leiba wrote:
> I agree. This is not a substantive issue, but is simply correcting an
> oversight. SHOULD NOT was the consensus call, and the correction Todd
> proposes is just making that sentence consistent with that.
>
> Enough said on this; Todd, please
On 05/03/2024 21:47, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On March 5, 2024 8:10:46 PM UTC, Todd Herr
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:30 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
On March 5, 2024 2:47:47 PM UTC, Todd Herr
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 6:12 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Section 5.3, in the format
