On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 9:04:57 PM EDT Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:06 AM Qin Wu via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > wrote: ... Since I'm the draft author, I'll weigh in: > Section 3.2 > > > OLD TEXT: > > " > > If the 'np' tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the > > 'sp' > > tag is present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag, if the 'sp' tag is > > not > > present, MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. " NEW TEXT: " If the > > 'np' > > tag is absent, the policy specified by the "sp" tag (if the 'sp' tag is > > present) or the policy specified by the "p" tag( if the 'sp' tag is not > > present > > and ‘p’tag is present), MUST be applied for non-existent subdomains. " The current text is crafted to define the new tag the same way that the existing tags are defined. I would prefer not to be novel about 'np'. I think this would be better as a working group input for DMARCbis to consider rewording how all the tag definitions are constructed. In this case I think consistency is important. > > Section 3.2 > > Change section 3.2 title from "3.2. Section 6.3 General Record Format" > > To > > 3.2. Changes in Section 6.3 "General Record Format" >> > > Similar changes can be applicable to other places. I have no problem with this proposed change. I think it improves clarity. > > I'll leave this bit to the authors and co-chairs to resolve. > > -MSK That's my thought. I'll wait for the co-chairs before taking any actions to update the draft. Scott K -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
