Hi Pete,
On 2012-06-09 16:29, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Brian,
>
> On 6/7/12 8:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>> S Moonesamy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Brian Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> Also, RFC4406 states that "Sending domains MAY publish either or both
>>>>> formats" (i.e. spf1 or spf2.0). That being so, I would ideally expect
>>>>> to see nine rows in the results table:
>>>>>
>>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 only
>>>>> SPF RR only, spf2.0 only
>>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 only
>>>>> TXT RR only, spf2.0 only
>>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 only
>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf2.0 only
>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>>>
>>>> Pete suggests having two tables for each survey: (a) a comparison of
>>>> RRTYPEs, and (b) a comparison of SPF vs. SIDF independent of RRTYPE.
>>>> Would that be sufficient?
>>>>
>> I am looking for clear presentation of the observed data, nothing more,
>> as I do whenever I read a data-based document. As my review stated,
>> I have no problem with the conclusions drawn in the draft.
>>
>
> I'm afraid you got distracted by Hector's question and didn't answer
> SM's. Please do.
Sorry - yes, I think those two tables would be fine.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
