It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Still no hat!
I was under the impression that we all agreed that we're not going to change the failure reporting spec other than by providing better examples. ith that in mind, I cannot imagine why we would screw around inventing new IANA registries. We didn't have them in 7489. What's different now? R's, John >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. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
