On 12/3/24 20:46, Daniel K. wrote: > On 12/2/24 16:03, Brotman, Alex wrote: >> I'm not opposed to changing to this style/format, but I think we need >> consensus from the group that they prefer one style or the other. > > I take this as slight encouragement. Just wanted to know that it was not > totally off the mark. > > I'll continue working on it.
Here's a link to what's currently in my wip branch. https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting/commit/e596256387d87953a63a0dc8a1c071c80611c041 Apologies for not posting the text here, but it would be quite a job to format it intelligibly. I believe I've included every bit of knowledge from the old text. It is currently formatted for ease of editing, for me, so please do not pay too much attention to all the seemingly extra empty lines. This version also adds the "generator" element that's been discussed. I'm planning to: * Incorporate/move comments from the XSD to here. * Explore the format used in the dmarcbis, keyword: : Definition to see how that looks. This version has not even been rendered. If you try you get to keep both pieces. * Double check all references for copy/paste mistakes. * Make a final version that actually renders well. Please, do not hesitate to make it known if there are any glaring mistakes here. Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
