Still no hat! On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 1:50 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> In particular, IANA considerations has two subsections which may neew the > chairs approval. > Just on the IANA stuff: 4.1 is fine, though it can be simplified to include just a sentence that says "Entry X in registry Y is changed to refer to this document." You don't need to re-specify the whole entry. 4.2 says "dmark" instead of "dmarc". Also I think this needs more consideration: We're basically creating a registry that contains the list provided in RFC 6591, but for DMARC's use. Might an ARF report be used to relay a DMARC failure independent of this document? Does it make sense to update this list in the context of that RFC (i.e., update RFC 6591 to refer to the registry rather than the list it contains)? The alternative is that we make our own registry that contains almost exactly the same list, for almost exactly the same purpose, which looks weird. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
