My point is that I don't understand what "remaining" means in Section 3.5.
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-28&url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29&difftype=--hwdiff ``` The Mail Receiver, after preparing a report, MUST evaluate the provided reporting URIs (See [I-D.ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis]) in the order given. ... An attempt MUST be made to deliver an aggregate report to every remaining URI, up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs. ``` On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 12:45 PM Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your comment below. Are you commenting on the " > up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs" ? That suggests that a > message receiver (report generator, not report receiver) may have a limit > on the number of URIs they're willing to send reports to. If that's your > nit, I can make that more clear. > > -- > Alex Brotman > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > Comcast > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Orie Steele via Datatracker <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 9:46 AM > > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > ; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Orie Steele's No Objection on > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting- > > 29: (with COMMENT) > > > > Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-29: 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 to > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/state > > ments/handling-ballot- > > positions/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BuRISkuxX4W9qRx2GroqLwMI0nyMJzcXyAQnH > > y3LhLzNiTnk6hqDlEiCFKmWWUf7UYdUVhZWDzITjSZ1E_I$ > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- > > dmarc-aggregate- > > reporting/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!BuRISkuxX4W9qRx2GroqLwMI0nyMJzcXyAQnH > > y3LhLzNiTnk6hqDlEiCFKmWWUf7UYdUVhZWDzITA-64-NQ$ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thanks for addressing my comments in -29. > > > > ### Nits > > > > In -29, the word remaining here is perhaps no longer needed: > > > > ``` > > An attempt MUST be made to deliver an aggregate report to > > every remaining URI, up to the Receiver's limits on supported URIs. > > ``` > > > > I think the intended behavior with the changes from -29 is to attempt to > > deliver to all URIs. > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
