Section 4.6 to 4.8 is the most important part of our document. After an abundance of preliminaries, this material defines the actual evaluation procedure. More than any other area, it needs to be clear and complete and procedural. If developers finds our text to be vague, implementations will include guesswork that will produce inconsistencies and errors.
At one point, the group confronted a complaint that this text lacked clarity, and I thought a rewrite would be attempted. But the changes in the next draft were minor, and no one ever asked if they solved the clarity problem. They did not. This problem came to a head recently when Scott asked the simple question of where a line of text should be added. I found our text to be so non-procedural that it lacked a suitable place to add a simple clarification. Sometimes, the best way to improve a first draft is to rewrite it, and this is one of those times. Here is a simple test: The tree walk for policy and organizational domain discovery has five exit paths. Can you identify them using the most recent draft of our text? I don't think so. I have a rewrite for these sections available. It is very detailed and yet shorter than than our current text, albeit by a trivial amount. Before we can consider whether it begins to solve the problem, I am looking for an admission that we have a problem to solve. Doug Foster
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
