On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:31 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> On Tue 19/Jan/2021 07:43:01 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > [...] > > > I guess "[this document]" refers to the RFC number to be. I think it's > useless > and can be safely removed, all of the five occurrences of it. > > It is clearer and more useful to specify the referred document when it is > /not/ > this document. For example: > > Changes in Section 6.5 of RFC 7489 "Domain Owner Actions" > > The above is going to be rendered with the correct anchor in the htmlized > version of the document. It can be expressed in xml as: > > <xref target="RFC7489" sectionFormat="of" section="6.5"/> > > so as to generate correct links whenever possible. > two things: 1) to be accurate I would want to target the section anchor. But actually the real answer is 2) the RFC editor owns the final XML and I believe they perform a bunch of this work during the AUTH48 process. Now saying that, someone will politely explain how wrong I am. In fact, those are the two terms appearing in the title. BTW, I'd change > the > title to: > > Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance > (DMARC) > Extension For Public Suffix Domains (PSDs) > I went with the Murray;s "Experimental DMARC Extension For Public Suffix Domains" And Murray restructured the Intro and it feels much cleaner. tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
