On April 16, 2020 3:30:59 AM UTC, Seth Blank <s...@sethblank.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:45 PM Scott Kitterman <sc...@kitterman.com>
>wrote:
>
>> > I think you are very close to an Abstract/Introduction that is
>clearly
>> > comprehensible to people who are not familiar with DMARC.
>>
>> Considering this is an extension to DMARC, I don't think that's the
>target
>> audience.
>>
>
>As an individual: everyone who reads the document stand-alone gets
>confused
>by this lack of clarity (it's the common thread through all the last
>call
>reviews so far), and a concise summary up top feels valuable both for
>this
>evaluation process, and for any future consumers of the document.
>Whether
>someone's familiar with DMARC or not, if they're reading this document,
>what's the harm in spelling it out very clearly, especially if we have
>text
>that we believe accomplishes this?
Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't think it's possible to actually make
this clear to anyone that isn't familiar with RFC 7489 without essentially
turning this into a proto 7489bis.
If you want to add it and are confident we aren't diving into a deep, deep
hole, I don't strongly object. Just let me know what to add.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
