On August 4, 2022 10:02:14 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed 03/Aug/2022 18:26:26 +0200 Ken O'driscoll wrote:
>>>
>>> I still don't see any value in adding text like this. The description
>>> of the tree walk is clear enough.
>>
>> +1 (again), I don't understand why this is needed.
>>
>> What problem statement is the proposed text attempting to address?
>
>
>I perceived the algorithm description with difficulty, because it is
>intermixed with alignment issues and cases where the alignment can be
>determined without knowing the organizational domain.
>
>I thought a concise definition of organizational domain was clearer.
I don't think this was as good as the text we were looking at last week. I'm
-1 on the specific proposal, but support making it clearer.
For the rest of the group:
I think that Ale's expression that he had difficulty understanding the
description of the tree walk as written is a strong sign we still need to
improve the language. Of the people involved in this specific discussion, as
far as I know, he's the only one who's first language isn't English. That's
true for most of the people in the world, so I don't think we can call it quite
done.
I got frustrated with this last week, but I think if the only non-native
English speaker in the discussion says it's confusing, I think we have to take
that seriously.
I'd suggest that we jump back to last week's discussion and take the state of
the discussion here as a basis for improving the current text:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KEiXYcaQ1omPbH-lqP8RXn5swsU/
Is there anyone that can't live with that?
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
