On 14/Feb/12 18:34, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman >> >>>> You are of course correct that SPF failures sometimes don't accept >>>> the message. I'd be willing to file an erratum that 2.d. should >>>> have said that the report MUST include the message if the reporting >>>> entity has received it. >>> >>> I'd support that. >> >> That's great. Is MUST include if you have ... or SHOULD include >> (unless you do not have ...) a better construction? I thought the >> trend in IETF documents was away from MUSTs if they weren't essential. > > I'd prefer "MUST ... unless" for this one. I'm not sure I can > explain why though.
We could get away with "... unless an extension specifies otherwise". > This one's for Barry: Can a Standards Track document contradict > another one on the basis of an accepted erratum? Or should we do a > quick update to RFC5965 (not a "bis", just a standards-track > correction)? IMHO we have to change authfailure-report anyway. Section 3.1 says: The third MIME part of the message is either of type "message/rfc822" (as defined in [MIME-TYPES]) or "text/rfc822-headers" (as defined in [REPORT]) and contains a copy of the entire header block from the original message. This part MUST be included (contrary to [REPORT], which makes it optional). jm2c _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
