[dmarc-ietf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 15 April 2021 07:17 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79E63A12FD; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 00:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd@ietf.org, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, dmarc@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <161847105823.12240.11886353486421150693@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 00:17:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ICiJYGgV1wqzaDwq6lwz1Iplais>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draf?= =?utf-8?q?t-ietf-dmarc-psd-12=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:17:39 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is easy to read and specify
an experiment, which could be useful.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Sections 1 and 3--
I share Lars' concern about the "update" in the last paragraph.

-- Section 5.1 --
Editorial comment: why using a sub-section ? Let's 'glue' its contents to the
first § of section 5. BTW, interesting read this section.

== NITS ==

-- Section 2.2 --
Unsure whether "Requests for Comment (RFC)" is really required ;-) cfr
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt

-- Sections 2.2 ... 2.7 --
Mostly cosmetic but I would have preferred the usual presentation to introduce
terminology, i.e., a list and not several sub-sections.