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

["Kurt Andersen (b)" <[e-mail]>]

I think that if we could get a core set of receivers who would be willing
to test this and report on their findings in 3-6 months, that would be
great.

--Kurt

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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
>