It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be rejected, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My reading is that
the reporter has quoted from the wrong section
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My logic is that
running code in the wild should trump whatever is
Dear Authors and DMARC group,
In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
the next month unless given good cause not to do so. The example simply
doesn't follow the ABNF, and the correction
