Since we're in WGLC here, this erratum is worth consideration. I've recommended "Held For Document Update" as the disposition.
My reply to the erratum was: === The algorithm as presented is correct, but I understand this report. The steps are, paraphrased: (1) Go get a set of things. (2) Filter them. (3) If the set is now empty, go get a set of things from a different location. (4) Filter them. [...] If the filter at step (2) doesn't leave an empty set, step (3) is a no-op, and running the same filter at step (4) is also a no-op. If the filter at (2) does leave an empty set, go get other data at (3), and then run the same filter on them at (4). It's correct, but it could be more explicit about what's going on here. === -MSK ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:07 AM Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7835) To: <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Cc: <giuse...@ohpe.it>, <superu...@gmail.com>, <zwi...@yahoo-inc.com> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7489, "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7835 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Giuseppe Trotta <giuse...@ohpe.it> Section: 6.6.3 Original Text ------------- 2. Records that do not start with a "v=" tag that identifies the current version of DMARC are discarded. 3. If the set is now empty, the Mail Receiver MUST query the DNS for a DMARC TXT record at the DNS domain matching the Organizational Domain in place of the RFC5322.From domain in the message (if different). This record can contain policy to be asserted for subdomains of the Organizational Domain. A possibly empty set of records is returned. 4. Records that do not start with a "v=" tag that identifies the current version of DMARC are discarded. Corrected Text -------------- 2. Records that do not start with a "v=" tag that identifies the current version of DMARC are discarded. 3. If the set is now empty, the Mail Receiver MUST query the DNS for a DMARC TXT record at the DNS domain matching the Organizational Domain in place of the RFC5322.From domain in the message (if different). This record can contain policy to be asserted for subdomains of the Organizational Domain. A possibly empty set of records is returned. Notes ----- In section 6.6.3 the points 2 and 4 are duplicated. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC7489 (draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-12) -------------------------------------- Title : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) Publication Date : March 2015 Author(s) : M. Kucherawy, Ed., E. Zwicky, Ed. Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : INDEPENDENT Area : N/A Stream : INDEPENDENT Verifying Party : ISE & Editorial Board
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
