Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-30: Discuss
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://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (revised ballot for -30) ** human_result. It appears that there is at least one data element (human_result per Sections 2.1.1.12 and 2.1.1.13) which is intended to be a human readable string. Per Section 4 of RFC2277 saying “protocols that transfer text MUST provide for carrying information about the language of that text”, what is the approach prescribed by this specification? Should an xs:lang attribute be added to the human_result element? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (revised ballot for -30) Thank you for addressing part of my DISCUSS and COMMENT feedback. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
