On April 16, 2020 3:30:59 AM UTC, Seth Blank <seth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:45 PM Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
