https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6
Folks, I'd like to get a bit of feedback on this one. I realized I'd changed this to a SHOULD, which doesn't really address the "fuzzy" complaint. Seems like the proper thing to do is make this a MUST, though I'd be interested in opposing thoughts. Instead of "The filename SHOULD be constructed using the following ABNF:", it would be convert to a "MUST be constructed". Relevant section in the current draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-02#section-2.6.1 (there's another nit in the ticket, though I don't think that requires discussion) Thanks -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
