On Fri 01/Dec/2023 21:06:24 +0100 Steven M Jones wrote:
There are only four open items on the issue tracker - though I think the SPF
question (https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/116) was
resolved. But is that really all there is to do?
I'd hope most of the other questions are solved as well. Aren't they?
*auth* https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/118
This was rehashed in the end of October, when Scott explained how the correct
way to fix SPF is appropriate usage of qualifiers. There seemed to be
agreement that such clarification deserves its own paragraph in DMARCbis, but
it never made it to rev 29.
*reject* https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/115
This was discussed ad nauseam. My understanding is that participants convinced
that MUST NOT is right finally consented to accept Barry's text.
*define* https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/96
To say when people can hold they implement or enforce DMARC. Seth proposed
some text in the beginning of April. Don't recall the conclusion. Do we need
to add text for this?
We should review *aggregate reporting*. For one point, we should add XML
documents to the normative references:
Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)
https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/
W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1: Structures
https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/
W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes
https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
There are a few other points which deserve a review, summarized in a thread
started by Olivier about mid November. Should I create a new ticket for that?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
