> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting > and draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting > > Comments on the dkim-reporting draft (for the record, I'm happy with > the spf- reporting draft):
I think we assume that about authors... :-) > paragraph 3.3, items 3/5: It seems to me to be overkill to specify > anything about what should be logged locally. It's not relevant to > interoperability and is really an implementation detail. Fixed. > paragraph 3.3, item 8: Since ra= for dkim is required, then it seems to > me if ra= is missing, the record has already failed step 5, so step is > is redundant. Oversight; "ra=" is no longer required. Changed it to OPTIONAL. This was done a couple of versions ago to allow for the case where someone wants failures to be reported via SMTP errors only and not ARF reports. > In the last hunk of paragraph 3, there is the phrase: > > "It might be useful to some Signers to receive such reports. To enable > this, a Verifier could violate the first step above and continue even > in the absence of an "r=" tag." > > I know that the rest of the paragraph gets to "Don't do this", but I'm > afraid the current wording is an invitation to mischief. Perhaps > something like: > > "It might be useful to some Signers to receive such reports, but this > use case is not supported. To support this, a Verifier would have to > violate the first step above and continue even in the absence of an > "r=" tag." Applied. Thanks for the review! -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
