On 9/5/24 10:09 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 04/09/2024 20:41, Daniel K. wrote:
On 7/30/24 17:18, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Mon 29/Jul/2024 23:46:15 +0200 Daniel K. wrote:
5) Overlap in the examples of dmarcbis and failure-reporting
With some wording differences that seem to stem from text being
copied,
the worked on in one draft only.
Entire Domain, Monitoring Mode vs.
Entire Domain, Monitoring Only, Per-Message Reports
They're both copied from rfc 7489. They've been added in
dmarcbis-31. Should
we just remove them from one of the I-Ds? Which one?
I suggest to keep all examples in dmarcbis. The companion documents can
then define their respective formats without carrying their own DMARC
Policy Record examples.
When we originally split the documents it wasn't clear to me just how
much of the failure reporting content would be removed from the main
specification, so I copied broadly. But it makes sense to have all the
policy expression content in the main specification.
Daniel's pull request for the failure-reporting I-D removes a couple
of appendixes:
...
Save for objections, I'm gonna merge it on the next occasion.
No objections here.
--S.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
