Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC

I am going to close this ticket. I have opened ticket 96, Tweaks to Abstract and Introduction , for Ale's suggestions and for any tweaks that John might still suggest. On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:36 AM Todd Herr wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:25 AM A

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:25 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 31/Dec/2020 20:24:59 +0100 John Levine wrote: > > In article 6...@mail.gmail.com> you write: > >> > >>Dave Crocker submitted some suggestions on-list, and I noodled a bit with > >>the text myself, and submit the following for your

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC

On Thu 31/Dec/2020 20:24:59 +0100 John Levine wrote: In article you write: Dave Crocker submitted some suggestions on-list, and I noodled a bit with the text myself, and submit the following for your collective consideration: I have a few minor editorial tweaks to suggest but they can wait.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >In mid-November, I shared some proposed text for new Abstract and >Introduction sections - >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wNE-cvIWQ3PXrM-42SozSocnnxs/ > >Dave Crocker submitted some suggestions on-list, and I noodled a bit with >the text myself,

[dmarc-ietf] Ticket #80 - DMARCbis Should Have Clear and Concise Definition of DMARC

In mid-November, I shared some proposed text for new Abstract and Introduction sections - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/wNE-cvIWQ3PXrM-42SozSocnnxs/ Dave Crocker submitted some suggestions on-list, and I noodled a bit with the text myself, and submit the following for your collective