On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 7:38 PM Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/2023 4:23 PM, Neil wrote: > > Also, we understand who our audiences are in reality. Sometimes it’ll be > a harried admin skimming the RFC, and others will take the time to do a > deep dive. Even the harried admin scanning today might want to dive deep > when he has more time. So out of respect for those who want to get things > done and solve problems quickly and those who wish to grok the new DMARC > spec, I think the optimal solution would be to follow E.B. White, making > every word count, having empathy for the reader, and avoiding distractions > that could bog the stressed reader down. > > When writing specifications, yes, it is good to consider the casual or > harried reader. To that end, vocabulary should not mislead. 'Policy' > misleads about the effect of choosing a particular value. > The other thing I've found that has proven useful in DNS RFCs, and that I've received positive feedback outside of IETF is when we can summarize definitions or guidance with tables. Two stand out - the table at the bottom of page 25 in RFC8499 showing examples of zone delegation types: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8499#page-25 and the table in RFC8624 listing implementation recommendations for DNSSEC algorithms https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8624#section-3.1 The former resonates with harried admins, while the later is useful to implementers. I am not saying we must do this, or we can, but it's something to consider.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
