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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

-MSK, hatless