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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> 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