Hi Sarah,
On Mon 12/Jan/2026 18:38:28 +0100 Sarah Tarrant wrote:
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.
Hm.. I assembled a list of 100+ names, gathered from those who posted to the WG
list, whether or not they dealt with failure reports. It looks somewhat
awkward, but otherwise I wouldn't know how to get a list of people we should
acknowledge.
Unless someone in Cc: has some better indications, I'd opt for not adding such
section.
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?
No, the Sourcecode Types page has a "media types" entry with a note saying:
media types may be used as defined in the IANA Media Types registry. The
sourcecode type may include the media type alone (e.g., jsonpath) or the
full path (e.g., application/jsonpath); one form should be used
consistently within a document.
Maybe it should be type="media type: message/rfc822"?
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.
Great.
Best
Ale
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
