On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:05 PM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
