Re: [dmarc-ietf] Mention ICANN/operational limitations was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd

["Stan Kalisch" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote:
> > As Secretary, there are three items that have not yet reached consensus
> > that must be resolved during WGLC:
> 
> > 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to implement
> > are needed
> 
> There has been feedback in favor of adding this and none against so far.
> 
> The specific proposal is:
> 
> "Please note that today's operational and policy reality prevents this 
> experiment from being deployed globally. If the experiment shows that PSD 
> solves a real problem at a large scale, the results could prove to be useful 
> in the development of policies outside of the IETF that would permit its 
> ubiquitous deployment."
> 
> Because RFCs are (approximately) forever, I'm concerned about words like 
> "today's" in protocol documents, even experimental ones.
> 
> How about this instead:
> 
> "As of the writing of this document operational and policy constraints prevent 
> this experiment from being deployed globally. If the experiment shows that 
> PSD solves a real problem and can be used at a large scale, the results could 
> prove to be useful in the development of policies outside of the IETF that 
> would permit broader deployment".

"[D]evelopment of policies outside of the IETF" strikes me as a little odd since IETF isn't setting policy *per se*, although substitute language that is just as succinct is escaping me at the moment.


Thanks,
Stan

> 
> Also, since this is about ephemera and not protocol, I think it should go in 
> Appendix A.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Scott K
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>