Hi, Tim, on Sep 7th, I sent a short review of -05, see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg02942.html. I didn't see any response, the paragraph I suggested to remove (par. 3.2.5) is still present in -07. Can anyone comment on the suggestion to move section 3.2.5 to some (future) BCP document?
/rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Draegen" <t...@eudaemon.net> > To: "dmarc" <dmarc@ietf.org> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 4:34:44 PM > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Last call for WG comments on "Interoperability Issues > Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows" > > Hi All, > > The editing team deems this draft as ready for last call review. > Here are the links to the recently posted v07: > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability/ > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-07 > > > =- Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
