Re: [dmarc-ietf] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 9:04:57 PM EDT Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:06 AM Qin Wu via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
...

Since I'm the draft author, I'll weigh in:

> Section 3.2
> 
> >  OLD TEXT:
> > "
> > If the 'np' tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the
> > 'sp'
> > tag is present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag, if the 'sp' tag is
> > not
> > present, MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. " NEW TEXT: " If the
> > 'np'
> > tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the 'sp' tag is
> > present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag( if the 'sp' tag is not
> > present
> > and ‘p’tag is present), MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. "

The current text is crafted to define the new tag the same way that the 
existing tags are defined.  I would prefer not to be novel about 'np'.  I think 
this would be better as a working group input for DMARCbis to consider 
rewording how all the tag definitions are constructed.  In this case I think 
consistency is important.

> > Section  3.2
> > Change section 3.2 title from "3.2.  Section 6.3 General Record Format" 
> > To
> > 3.2.  Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format"
>>
> > Similar changes can be  applicable to other places.

I have no problem with this proposed change.  I think it improves clarity.
> 
> I'll leave this bit to the authors and co-chairs to resolve.
> 
> -MSK

That's my thought.  I'll wait for the co-chairs before taking any actions to 
update the draft.

Scott K