Yes, the erratum is correct. I see you already rejected a duplicate. It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Dear Authors and DMARC group, > >In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is >that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in >the next month unless given good cause not to do so. The example simply >doesn't follow the ABNF, and the correction does. > >Eliot > >* >Type: Technical >Publication Format(s) : TEXT* >Reported By: Gary Palmer >Date Reported: 2018-05-22 > >Section 7.2.1.1 says: > > mail.receiver.example!example.com!1013662812!1013749130.gz > >It should say: > > mail.receiver.example!example.com!1013662812!1013749130.xml.gz > >Notes: > >The specification states that the suffix should be "xml" for an >uncompressed file, and "xml.gz" for a compressed file. The example >filename is missing the "xml" component of the suffix > >-=-=-=-=-=- >[Alternative: text/html] >-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
