Hello Mykytka, BCP is possibly appropriate. I’ll see what our AD thinks.
There isn’t currently a mechanism for indicating the report contains redacted segments. So far, the sites that have implemented this don’t appear to have a need for doing so. I’m not sure it’s necessary; the goal is to have the redacted segments be invariant when the original strings are also invariant, which is accomplished without the need for signaling redaction. I’d like to hear other opinions on this point though. I agree on the references split. However, ARF is the only normative one; the others are informative. Thanks, -MSK From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (?. ?????????)" Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 10:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction 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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
