Hi Ale, Thank you for your reply. I have some followup questions/comments:
A) Regarding: > Well, we miss an Acknowledgment section. Since both of the other documents > in the cluster have one, perhaps we should add one too. If you would like to add an Acknowledgements section, please let us know and also submit a new version of this draft to the datatracker -- that way it's clear where the change originated. B) Regarding: > The report sample's tag is <sourcecode type="RFC5322">. Please replace it > with <sourcecode type="message/rfc822"> type="message/rfc822" is also not on our list. Are you requesting we ask RPAT to add the type to the list? C) Regarding: > Yes, we'd participate, as this allows to share the process. However, I'm > unable to create a repository under https://github.com/rfc-editor/. Couldn't > you fork https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting? No need! We will be creating the repo ourselves and sharing it with you at the time of AUTH48. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 12, 2026, at 10:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > below some replies, agreed with Steve Jones. > > On Fri 09/Jan/2026 23:04:36 +0100 Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> [...] >> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last >> Call, >> please review the current version of the document: >> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? > > > Yes > > >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? > > > Well, we miss an Acknowledgment section. Since both of the other documents > in the cluster have one, perhaps we should add one too. > > >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >> document. For example: >> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document? >> If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's >> terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). >> * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field >> names >> should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double >> quotes; >> <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > > > I'd recommend to keep the same style of the other two documents in the > cluster, where possible. The WG never discussed style questions, but there > is an attempt to use the same term to refer to the same thing, with the same > capitalization and quoting. > > >> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we >> hear otherwise at this time: >> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >> (RFC Style Guide). >> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the >> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >> with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > > All references are current. > > >> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, >> are >> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > > No. > > >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > > None AFAIK. > > >> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >> * Does the sourcecode validate? >> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> * Note that type "RFC5322" is not on that list. Please review > > > The report sample's tag is <sourcecode type="RFC5322">. Please replace it > with <sourcecode type="message/rfc822"> > > >> 7) This document is part of Cluster 539: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C539 >> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a >> document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please >> provide >> the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. >> If order is not important, please let us know. >> * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that >> should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or >> Security Considerations)? >> * For more information about clusters, see >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ >> * For a list of all current clusters, see: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > > > The correct order of the documents is: > > 1. draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-41 > > 2. draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-32 > > 3. draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting-24 > > >> 8) Because this document updates RFC 6591 and obsoletes RFC 7489, please >> review >> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this >> document or are not relevant: >> * RFC 7489 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7489) > > > None of those errata is about failure reporting. > > >> 9) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >> kramdown-rfc? >> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >> For more >> information about this experiment, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > > We used the Mmark flavor of markdown (https://mmark.miek.nl/). As its syntax > is quite different from that of kramdown-rfc, we're not interested to change > at this point. > > >> 10) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >> AUTH48 in >> GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this >> experiment, >> see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. > > > Yes, we'd participate, as this allows to share the process. However, I'm > unable to create a repository under https://github.com/rfc-editor/. Couldn't > you fork https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting? > > > Best > Ale > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
