#6: Fuzzy normative language around filenames
Message-ID: <54ab056c.2090...@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:43:08 -0800
From: Jim Fenton
To: "dmarc@ietf.org"
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Comments on dmarc-base-09
[...]
Section 6.2.1.1, "The filename is typically constructed..." Again
#5: Definition of "pct" parameter
Message-ID: <54ab056c.2090...@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:43:08 -0800
From: Jim Fenton
To: "dmarc@ietf.org"
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Comments on dmarc-base-09
[...]
Section 5.3, definition of pct: parameter: "However, this MUST NOT be
applie
#2: Flow of operations text in dmarc-base
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Anne Bennett
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 text in the later and
#4: Definition of "fo" parameter
Message-ID: <54ab056c.2090...@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:43:08 -0800
From: Jim Fenton
To: "dmarc@ietf.org"
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Comments on dmarc-base-09
[...]
Section 5.3, definition of fo: parameter: I had reported that there
isn't any
#3: Two tiny nits
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Anne Bennett
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 19:41:29 -0500
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it
Having just spent several hours poring over this document
(-12), I might as well send my additional minor observations.
I suspect
#1: SPF RFC 4408 vs 7208
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Anne Bennett
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 19:10:56 -0500
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] SPF RFC 4408 vs 7208
On Jan 6, Murray S. Kucherawy confirmed fixing the reference for
the SPF RFC from the now-obsolete 4408 to 7208 ("Fixed in -11").
However, -12 s
