There were a few errata for the aggregate reporting. I wanted to confirm with
the list that these are still valid.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5440 :: I thought it had been determined
the ";" was not necessary.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6485 :: We've since replaced this,
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the
>-bis document?
It's already fixed in the current markdown.
FYI, the XML pattern is silly. It forbids harmless stuff like leading zeros in
01.02.03.04
and
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 2024-03-23 19:04:
This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in
the -bis document?
It has been already fixed in aggregate-reporting:
Regards,
Matt
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
Brotman, Alex wrote on 2024-03-23 19:17:
Thanks for the feedback. I believe I've corrected all except
- 2.1: "(...) while there MUST be one spf sub-element". At least one according to the XML Schema
Definition (might be two, each with a different scope "helo" and "mfrom").
Can we talk about
Thanks for the feedback. I believe I've corrected all except
- 2.1: "(...) while there MUST be one spf sub-element". At least one according
to the XML Schema Definition (might be two, each with a different scope "helo"
and "mfrom").
Can we talk about how this looks in a sample report?
--
This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the
-bis document?
-MSK
-- Forwarded message -
From: RFC Errata System
Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04 AM
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
To: , ,
Cc: ,
The following errata report has
Thanks, added as a list
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of Matthäus Wander
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 7:15 PM
> To: dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Security Considerations in
Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2023-11-17 10:22:
On Thu 16/Nov/2023 16:47:48 +0100 Olivier Hureau wrote:
However, I think you should have a fixed value for the /version
variable in order to clearly differentiate the XSD version, Even
thought it is clearly specified in RFC 7489 :
``` The "version"
