Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-psd/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. It is easy to read and specify an experiment, which could be useful. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Sections 1 and 3-- I share Lars' concern about the "update" in the last paragraph. -- Section 5.1 -- Editorial comment: why using a sub-section ? Let's 'glue' its contents to the first § of section 5. BTW, interesting read this section. == NITS == -- Section 2.2 -- Unsure whether "Requests for Comment (RFC)" is really required ;-) cfr https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt -- Sections 2.2 ... 2.7 -- Mostly cosmetic but I would have preferred the usual presentation to introduce terminology, i.e., a list and not several sub-sections. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
