>> Also in Section 3.3, for "granularity", we might want to mention that >> this is supported in [OLD-DKIM] but not in [DKIM] since it's undergoing >> update now and the whole concept of key granularity has been removed. >> We would then change the existing [DKIM] reference to [OLD-DKIM], and >> add one called [DKIM] that points to the one that's currently in the >> RFC editor queue. (Barry, check my math on this one, please.) > > It looks like this one got missed. Anyone have any particular comments, > especially Barry?
I thought I'd replied to this before, but I guess not. Do we really want to talk about "old-dkim" at this point? Shouldn't we have a failure reason of "other" anyway, and just eliminate "granularity" and say that any other failure reason is reported as "other"? >> If there's no other feedback, do people think we're ready to start a >> WGLC on this one? > > Re-asking this. I think we're ready. The above issue can be resolved during WGLC. Let's say that this now officially starts working-group last call on draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-02 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report ), said last call to end on 30 September. Everyone, please review this version and give it a yay or nay. Please post issues, and also post notes that you've reviewed this version and it's ready to go. Barry _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
