On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 1:10 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > The text reported in the erratum doesn't really exist in DMARCbis; it's been replaced by the DNS Tree Walk ( https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-30.html#name-dns-tree-walk ) Are we to issue an actual update to RFC 7489 here as well? -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703-220-4153 *m:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
