Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 03 December 2019 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF95B120046 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kzh6_aCcvr_l for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa32.google.com (mail-vk1-xa32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9BF512002F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa32.google.com with SMTP id t184so1496071vka.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:40:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nKrKSyqdkFtH/zTYwbgEeCSR7GFS8kq2GQQKYMTVh+k=; b=szL2ntEpt6dZETpKfP2qCXmuocJtk/hDVocQkjrbZeJ83pDdKwMcmt03VZZi4geA17 CmWlXMZZb3bIBGmDlxZFwQjKOXPGXKVemRGDTdW3ElTiUTJ6lsODbMi3JBW1GZUmrMGC TQ6GmoHypyd5kIp2TR1AHp/ACdRuCKAdH259pvqvi83DRbGcUJLf59GwP0LOJ2tnh4hx Hieb02Tz/OjMTGRSdO8h38kyOB7b+Tkg6ZltK0VtQ4hYg3yjuJLQ1lJqSGhoVI18KuDv mGdA/U9J9MSyEla0+KqAARgIoqJBl1W3XZLiftCfoOSFB7WXvwMcK97q1mWJGBheHOt5 4VeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nKrKSyqdkFtH/zTYwbgEeCSR7GFS8kq2GQQKYMTVh+k=; b=A/od8fI7SGQmme/l6SXJv51nHE5uNdD04Dyj0/eWQwdXxmBztaP33q3OsROe3rFWrh 7iUUnLj3S1BViTo9rVmnmBXbYBYKTvbh5HV77XCcX+9/8S4XKK0SWsXPiShHc6Fkg+g2 4lm9JljohZkDtbjYxnbfUs11S2nT5V7dGWWQpiYjDcap32JBt2SYC8Ifzt41nfeDX99n NjSJFGpvoK7Fqm+myvYMx8OPdQG4U6nPUUOOlzF2vOVYA2X+D3+lPRiLIqlDFkoxkEyW ndpyW0zPPk4BwZTGoB4Qg2lz3kHdnuGKg4XQmCx7HzPKqfsCbCfqiwplHDBYLLQZaoBs XppA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXryvn3QW6Xupy6KYHxAsZv3MUAKw6Cl64yNPvQcdBen7JNkK9b 9UMIBRyblASDyfxHm5SQ/oT3Hrjq1suGmZym5I3Y+A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIgUupsIMgY00efye39BVB3MtBUuIMsu/rIaPebu/Bp8AbZ9CKh76oERXfuTr7IW4TDSro+ThCR4RjVJ6vLNg=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:ccc7:: with SMTP id c190mr5085628vkg.15.1575405652623; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:40:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <728d7df1-d563-82f4-bfb3-a65a75fdd662@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwacbAT04tckpPcRcnOt=1QByOBeJ7uDf6rNK6NRwtxZYg@mail.gmail.com> <ffa2bf72-3024-237b-86ae-9cc04babeec6@gmail.com> <74a0ea49-7a46-4eb6-c297-cd703f63bd1b@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbp2hNrgF_xxhKRRODQ6HP=U5_K-r3Wtm1wJZOZcKup3g@mail.gmail.com> <9DE9E7DC-FE60-4952-8595-B2D087A6B780@kitterman.com> <CADyWQ+GSP0K=Ci22ouE6AvdqCDGgUAg3jZHBOg3EwCmw=QG84A@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1obn55Y2=CuEYRYCEO3TYYNhYTsdkesQ67O61jRyfO=wA@mail.gmail.com> <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <79b1cbe6-8a53-9157-63de-210fd2bad89a@dcrocker.net>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:40:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYVDbB+VCaU-igqcMpmZkXMCJV+Ka2MXyK812Fbj652Yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d466d0598d2b692"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/26vkfPNS7H7WZJtj50PBL-z6H_o>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 20:40:56 -0000

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 11/10/2019 11:34 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> * add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is
> an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the revision
> of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form of
> anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the
> experiment's participants;
>
> Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience
> and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly
> naive view.
>
> The IETF does standards, not experiments.  Not /real/ experiments.  What
> it calls an experiment mostly serves as market testing, with a smidgen of
> engineering tuning later.  For the most part, IETF experiments produce an
> accepted/failed/needs-small-revisions range of results.  What it does /not/
> produce is results along the lines of "that was interesting, now let's
> start fresh and do the real standard."
>
> Perhaps there are exampls of IETF experiments that have permitted entirely
> starting over, but mostly those only happen when there is a complete
> failure, and those typically are called experiments.
>
Should I take this as advocating for running the experiment without
publishing an RFC about it?  Or do you have another suggestion?

I don't think the idea of going back and fixing the DMARC-PSL separation
issue first is tenable given how long it will take, compared to the urgent
need to get some data here.

-MSK