Re: [dmarc-ietf] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:05 PM Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thinking twice, perhaps we don't need to introduce the PSL until Section
>>>> 3.4.
>>>> In that case, strike the last two sentences of the above paragraph.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not obvious to me that this is better, but sure, let's discuss it.
>>>
>>>> Here's the paragraph in question
>>
>>      <t>To determine the organizational domain for a message under
>> evaluation,
>>         and thus where to look for a policy statement, DMARC makes use of
>> a Public Suffix
>>         List. The process for doing this can be found in Section 3.2 of
>> the DMARC
>>         specification.</t>
>>
>>
>>
>> The more I look at this, you need it near the top because that is where
>> the discussion
>> of the policy.  But also open to be convinced.
>>
>
> Looks good to me where it is.  I would add "(PSL)", introducing the
> acronym, right after its first use if we decide to leave it there.
>

Will do


> A formatting thing to take care of at some point: Anyplace you refer to
> DMARC, the protocol, just have it as "DMARC" (e.g., "not exempt from DMARC
> policy"); anyplace you refer to DMARC, the specification (e.g., "Section
> a.b.c of DMARC" or similar), it should be the <xref target="..."> ...
> </xref> sorta deal so that it pops out as a reference.
>
>
Argh yes - I was removing the RFC7489 references which had the XML  bits.
 oh let me do that fix up

tim