On 17 March 2025 00:31:14 GMT, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote: >I just moved that document into an "approved" state, so changing it now >requires extra scrutiny to make sure those changes don't run afoul of a >claim that they have WG and IETF consensus. > >Do all of these things meet that bar?
The current draft version, 31, contains some unfortunate errors from the last minute changes that went in based on the reviews. The xsd file does not validate any more. Additionally, Alex and I discovered a mismatch in the version of mmark we use causing the newer "use title" syntax I had in my previous PR to be ignored when he built the files. See section 3.1.1.11. Also, I did some further digging into the ABNF based on the Opsdir review. That led to the discovery of the use of two different domain name definitions. This was cleaned up, along with some minor nits. I sent a separate email about that, and the commit messages in the PR contain more details. To me, all the commits make sense, and fix real defects and nits. Maybe the question to ask is if we rather would like to get errata reports about these issues, than fixing them now. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
