A couple of minor comments: 1. Section 3 includes: "A URI specifying the endpoint to which aggregate information about policy failures should be sent" and "When sending failure reports via SMTP" This might imply that reports should only be sent when a failure is experienced, whereas I believe the intention is for this to be like DMARC where reporting is sent when messages are exchanged even if there are no policy failures. This could be clarified with the above changed to: "A URI specifying the endpoint to which aggregate information about policy validation results should be sent" and "When sending aggregate reports via SMTP"
2. Appendix 2: Example JSON Report - the JSON has a few syntax problems: - A , is required after the "summary" object - A " is required to close the result-type property in the third failure - A " is required to close the receiving-mx-hostname in the third failure HTH David On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Brotman, Alexander < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Folks, > > We attempted to incorporate the feedback from Alexey and Chris as best we > could, and we believe we have addressed each of their concerns either via > the updated draft or via the mailing list. The period for the WGLC is > nearly over, and we wanted to try to provide an interim/updated draft for > any final review. Thank you for any comments. > > -- > Alex Brotman > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse > Comcast > > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
