> I'll bring this up during DNSOP on Wednesday.
Thanks, Tim.
Barry
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Barry
I'll bring this up during DNSOP on Wednesday.
Any issues we just blame Murray? of course not.
Tim
DNSOP tri-chair
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Barry Leiba
wrote:
> We have a good set of comments on -15, and thanks, everyone, for that.
> Kurt and Seth, please make the changes that
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Try this:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-
> rfc7601bis-02=rfc7601
>
> Looks OK to me. I have some minor editorial niggles about the wording
> of the EAI advice, but the substance is fine.
>
>
[re-adding
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Barry Leiba
wrote:
> We have a good set of comments on -15, and thanks, everyone, for that.
> Kurt and Seth, please make the changes that make sense based on the
> discussion, and publish -16 when you've done that. When I see -16 go
> up, I'll put it into
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> It wasn't meant as a restriction. I was trying to decide on the right
> normative word to use here, and the IETF usage of SHOULD is probably too
> strong. I'd be happy with a MAY there; I don't think it hurts to point out
> that it's a good
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting
& Conformance WG of the IETF.
Title : Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol
Authors : Kurt
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Barry Leiba
wrote:
> We have a good set of comments on -15, and thanks, everyone, for that.
> Kurt and Seth, please make the changes that make sense based on the
> discussion, and publish -16 when you've done that. When I see -16 go
> up, I'll put it into
Review of:draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-16 (partial)
Date: 17 Jul 18
Reviewed by: D. Crocker
Summary:
I gave a review for -14 and will skip the pro forma functional summary.
I reviewed the initial portions of the -16 draft and see some basic and
pervasive language problems that
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-02=rfc7601
Looks OK to me. I have some minor editorial niggles about the wording
of the EAI advice, but the substance is fine.
In section 5:
For messages that are EAI-formatted messages, this test is done after
