Hello,
Some comments on draft-ietf-marf-redaction:
I see this document's intended status is Informational. I wonder why it
isn't BCP, since the doc. tries to establish the recommended practice.
In Section 2: should it be mentioned that the 1st part of
"multipart/report" message with "feedback-report" report-type should
have a notice of some data being redacted?
References should be split into normative and informative. I suppose
[ARF] and [MIME] should go as normative and [DKIM-REPORTING] as informative.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
04.11.2011 20:59, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
This message starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on the
redaction document, ending on 11/18. Alessandro sent some text for
consideration so those are already included in the WGLC. Please
submit any further review comments before then.
Thanks!
-MSK
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
