> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting > > > That seems somewhat orthogonal to unrecognized tags. If we add > > unrecognized tags, that's the default? I think unrecognized tags > > probably make sense so this draft doesn't have to be updated for each > > new tag that gets identified, but I'm still not understanding how it > > contributes to resolution of the discuss. > > Me either, now that you mention it. I'll ask.
Got a reply: He found the text ambiguous about whether the report is generated per signature, or per tag within a signature that went awry somehow. The one-report-per-domain-per-message thing satisfies his concern and will clear the DISCUSS. The other one is indeed orthogonal. I'd be fine with leaving it in, however, unless someone sees a problem with doing so. Any other comments or objections? If not, I'll post a -13 version in time to beat the embargo late on Monday. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
