> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] comments on draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-06 > > [Section 2 and Section 3 stuff]
Thanks for your suggestions. However, I think the layout of the sections whose revisions you proposed are sufficient as-is. After two working group last calls and too many revisions, I think we're long past the point where we should be worried about arrangement of the material unless it's actually seriously wrong. > Reported-URI is never mentioned in the document, except in the example. > Please remove it from there too. I disagree that this is necessary. We're not saying other ARF fields aren't allowed here, are we? If they're allowed in ARF, they're allowed here (unless we've explicitly said otherwise, and we haven't). > Lastly, in the *IANA Considerations* section the names are not exact: > > In Section 5.1, s/Feedback Report Feedback Type Registry/"Feedback > Report Type Values" registry/ and s/Feedback Type:/Feedback Type > Name:/. > > In Section 5.2, s/Feedback Report Header Names Registry/"Feedback > Report Header Fields" registry/. Quite right; fixed both. If there's nothing else, I plan to get Hilda to post -07 soon and I'll have it over to the IESG shortly thereafter. We should turn our editing energy to the remaining documents. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
