On Monday, March 12, 2012 01:57:49 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:02 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting > > > > Absent a compelling reason (and I see no compelling reason), I think > > altering the definition of all is a mistake. Any future drafts that add > > new tags can update this one to extend the list off allowable tags (and > > thus the definition of all). I'd leave unknown tags out. > > I think if that's the case, then "all" changes meanings depending on the > version being implemented, and that's begging for either a "v=" tag in the > _report record, or the removal of "all" and no default so the full set has > to be listed explicitly. > > Given the choice, I'd opt for the latter.
Option 3: Leave all as the default and say to ignore unknown tags. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
