Tim, Why not ?
Or even going simpler and removing the sub-section title (keeping the text of course) As you can guess, this is purely cosmetic, so, feel free to ignore my suggestion Kind regards -éric From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 19 April 2021 at 17:36 To: Eric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dmarc-...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dmarc-...@ietf.org>, "dmarc-cha...@ietf.org" <dmarc-cha...@ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-12: (with COMMENT) On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:43 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com<mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: Tim, Thank you for your quick reply and the updates to the document. My comment on section 5.1 was actually on section 4.1 ... Sorry about the mix, I should drink more coffee it seems :-o Ahh, I see what you are referring to. I think it was written as a subsection with the thought of adding this section to the Privacy Considerations section of the DMARC-bis document. Perhaps some wording to reflect this? "If this experiment is successful, this section should be incorporated into the Privacy Considerations section of DMARC-bis" ? tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
