I should have been more clear. This is NOT specific to HTML/HREF rendering. Section references to an RFC without the RFC mentioned is misleading. For example:
" DMARC [RFC7489] defines a policy language that domain owners can specify for the domain of the address in a RFC5322.From header. Section 6.6.1 specifies, somewhat imprecisely, how IDNs in the RFC5322.From address domain are to be handled. That section is updated to say that all U-labels in the domain are converted to A-labels before further processing. Sections 6.7 and 7.1 are similarly updated to say that all U-labels in domains being handled are converted to A-labels before further processing." The above references Section 6.6.1 (and Sections 6.7 and 7.1), but from which RFC(s)? Are these from RFC5322, RFC7489, this draft? This would be somewhat more clear if this had mentioned the intended referenced RFC (7489) in the same paragraph that the reference is made. For example, In RFC7849, Section… Natural language interpolation is challenging. I agree that there are different ways to reference something that may or may not work with the current renderings. For example: "In RFC7489, Section 6.6.1 … " is equivalent to "Section 6.6.1 [RFC7489]." IMO, authors (in general) should put effort into checking that the various renderings meet expectations. If there are incorrect hyperlinks, fix them or remove them. The rendering issue is not just HTML, it also effects the PDF rendering. I believe the author is putting in effort to correctly reference the sections, but it's not consistent. The draft does have many references to sections that correctly link. Take for example: "Section 4.3 of [RFC7208] states that all IDNs in an SPF DNS record MUST be A-labels; this rule is unchanged since any SPF record can be used to authorize either EAI or conventional mail. " Thanks, Tim On 3/11/19, 4:02 PM, "Gen-art on behalf of Barry Leiba" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks for the review, Tim. The html rendering issues are for the RFC editor to deal with, and not in the scope of the draft editors. Barry On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:54 AM Tim Evens via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Reviewer: Tim Evens Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-?? Reviewer: Tim Evens Review Date: 2019-03-11 IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-14 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with nits. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Throughout the draft, section references (html rendering) does not correctly HREF the RFC and section. For example, page-5 Section 6 has a reference to section 6.6.1 of RFC7489, but the HTML rendering HREF links to this draft instead of correctly linking to RFC7489 Section 6.6.1. Ideally the references should link correctly, for example on page-3 Section 4 with "Section 3 of [RFC7208]."
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
