Re: [dmarc-ietf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>>> Section 4.1
>>>
>>>    o  Multi-organization PSDs (e.g., ".com") that do not mandate DMARC
>>>       usage: Privacy risks for Organizational Domains that have not
>>>       deployed DMARC within such PSDs are significant.  For non-DMARC
>>>       Organizational Domains, all DMARC feedback will be directed to the
>>>       PSO.  PSD DMARC is opt-out (by publishing a DMARC record at the
>>>       Organizational Domain level) vice opt-in, which would be the more
>>>       desirable characteristic.  This means that any non-DMARC
>>>       organizational domain would have its feedback reports redirected
>>>       to the PSO.  The content of such reports, particularly for
>>>       existing domains, is privacy sensitive.
>>>
>>> It might be worth making some statement about the applicability of PSD
>>> DMARC for such PSDs that do not mandate DMARC usage.  (I guess the
>>> following paragraphs mostly play that role, though perhaps editorially
>>> tying them together more clearly is possible.)
>>
>> I'm not sure where you're going on this, but the following paragraphs do
>> try to pull it together.  I've been trying to wordsmith these with little
>> luck.
>>
>> Also, it appears that the word "vice" above should be "versus".
>
> I suspected it might :)

Actually, “vice” as a preposition has a meaning similar to “versus” (you
could look it up).[1]

That said, I think that “versus” is better known and better understood, so,
despite my general preference to avoid Latin terms and abbreviations, we
should switch to “versus”.

Barry


[1]  “You Could Look It Up” is a James Thurber reference:
https://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2010/09/you-could-look-it-up.html