On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
No objection — please do use the WG’s tracker for these items. Anne’s
thorough review will be picked up (and not rediscovered!) if we’ve got an
obvious place to start from.
Done for Anne's points, and I'll do so for Jim
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
DMARC implementations are already in the wild and deployed. Input to the
existing specification will be largely based on working implementations.
You might have your own reasons for waiting for this WG to review the DMARC
#5: Definition of pct parameter
Message-ID: 54ab056c.2090...@bluepopcorn.net
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:43:08 -0800
From: Jim Fenton fen...@bluepopcorn.net
To: dmarc@ietf.org dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Comments on dmarc-base-09
[...]
Section 5.3, definition of pct: parameter:
#2: Flow of operations text in dmarc-base
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Anne Bennett a...@encs.concordia.ca
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 19:26:41 -0500
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Flow of operations text in -12
In draft 12, Section 4.3 Flow Diagram, we have text which
I think is somewhat contradicted by
On Jan 17, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
I have two concerns.
It seems you jumped the gun to accept the RFC 4408 obsolete idea. Is 7208
backward compatible or not? Does DMARC require 7208 operations or 4408
operations?
And is this -12 publication worthy of
