At the risk of bringing up the whole "cv=invalid" debate again...
When a chain is invalid (say, an AMS is missing), Section 9.3 says to add a seal that only covers itself but uses N+1 for its "i=" value. Could someone propose some informational text for the draft that explains why that decision was made? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
