On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I've noticed that you've posted draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-08, so > some of the issues identified below might no longer be relevant: > > 1) The new abstract doesn't even use the word "email". This needs to be > fixed, because otherwise it is not possible to determine that this is > related to email or DKIM from reading the abstract. > > The current abstract: > > The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism > whereby a series of handlers of a message can conduct authentication > > suggestion to insert "email" before "message" above. > > of a message as it passes among them on the way to its destination, > and record the status of that authentication at each step along the > handling path, for use by the final recipient in making choices about > the disposition of the message. > I've always understood the term "message" to mean "email" at the IETF, given the titles of RFC5321, RFC5322, and what the "M" stands for in "SMTP", "LMTP", "IMAP", etc. 2) I liked "Primary Design Criteria" (section 2.1) from -06. Maybe add > it back as an Appendix? It is not important for new readers, but might > be of interest to more advanced readers. > It seemed like clutter to me, but an appendix is probably fine. > 6). In 9.5 (I think it is 9.6 in -08): should the document formally > register the "arc" Authentication-Results method in the IANA > Considerations? > Yes. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
