Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-01-21 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >happened in the deployed universe. So now we have a registry entry for the >"body" ptype which isn't deprecated, but possibly no live uses of it. ... I'd leave it there, at least so nobody inadvertently reuses the ptype name. Apropos the comment about VBR, as far as I

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing last call for draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-00

2019-01-21 Thread Seth Blank
+1 I concur it’s time for last call On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:07 Peter M. Goldstein < peter.m.goldst...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > I think it should be submitted for last call. > > Best, > > Peter > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:39 AM Kurt Andersen (b) > wrote: > >> Since we've had no

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposing last call for draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-00

2019-01-21 Thread Peter M. Goldstein
+1 I think it should be submitted for last call. Best, Peter On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:39 AM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > Since we've had no controversy or concerns expressed regarding John's > document (draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-00 >

[dmarc-ietf] Proposing last call for draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-00

2019-01-21 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
Since we've had no controversy or concerns expressed regarding John's document (draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-00 ), do people feel that it is ready for last call? --Kurt ___ dmarc mailing list

[dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-05: (with COMMENT)

2019-01-21 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-01-21 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:25:45AM -0500, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > > Section 2.3 > > > > > > > >body: Information that was extracted from the body of the message. > > > > [...] > > > > interest. The "property" is an

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-01-21 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, January 21, 2019 02:41:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Hunk at "page 17, line 44": > > > > Perhaps another sentence (more for completeness than anything) at the end > > of > > the new paragraph. Something like,