On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Will do > 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. > > Argh yes - I was removing the RFC7489 references which had the XML bits. oh let me do that fix up tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
