search

ietf-wg-dmarc / dmarc-draftissues

1 stars 0 forks source link

Placeholder ticket - References #106

Closed ietf-svn-bot closed 2 years ago

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

owner:todd.herr@valimail.com resolution_fixed type_defect | by todd.herr@valimail.com

What are the rules in markdown for when one should reference an RFC by number, and when by its name?

For instance, there are numerous places in the doc right now that say "[RFC7208]" where "SPF" would read better.

Use this ticket to fix overuse of normative references.

Issue migrated from trac:106 at 2022-01-24 16:53:33 +0000

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from new to accepted

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@todd.herr@valimail.com set owner to todd.herr@valimail.com

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from accepted to assigned

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@johnl@taugh.com commented

I'd just add a mention. e.g. "blah blah SPF [RFC7208]."

It's a lot easier to find the references if they're all by RFC number.

ietf-svn-bot commented 2 years ago

@todd.herr@valimail.com changed status from assigned to closed

ietf-svn-bot commented 2 years ago

@todd.herr@valimail.com set resolution to fixed

ietf-svn-bot commented 2 years ago

@todd.herr@valimail.com set milestone to Deliverable #3 (changes to DMARC base spec + DMARC Usage Guide