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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:30:59 AM EST Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:02 AM Craig Schwartz <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > First, while I know you've said the needs of external actors won't weigh
> > on your decision about moving forward, I would like to mention that
> > having a stable reference for PSD DMARC will help us with working towards
> > policy changes that would allow us to participate in this experiment.  It
> > may not be important to the WG Chairs' decision on the draft, but there
> > are stakeholders for whom it is important.
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't mean to suggest the restriction you're referring
> to is invalid.  I'm sympathetic to the idea that some potential
> participants in PSD are constrained by policies outside of their control or
> ours.  But I look at it this way: A series of "X can't happen until Y
> happens" assertions have been made over the last while, and the series is
> roughly circular.  I don't mean to be insensitive to the pain of you or
> others under external constraints, yet at the same time, from the
> perspective of the IETF, those constraints are very much external and thus
> are easier to disqualify as we try (sometimes desperately) to find a way
> out of this deadlock we're in.
> 
> I will also be somewhat ashamed to hand Alexey a deadlocked working group
> in March.  :-)
> 
> With my chair hat on, I'm leaning toward making the following consensus
> evaluation: With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last
> Call on the PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection,
> we should proceed toward publication.  Unless someone wants to argue that
> this is not the WG's consensus, we'll proceed at the end of next week.
> 
> To be specific:
> 
> Dave raised a post-WGLC concern that DMARC and its use of the PSL really
> ought to be teased apart.  I have heard no objection to that, and in fact
> have seen some support for it, so I consider that also to have consensus.
> The part that does not appear to have consensus is that it is mandatory for
> this to be done before the PSD work can proceed.
> 
> Dave also suggested that Experimental status is not procedurally
> appropriate for this work, and stated some reasons.  There appear to be no
> others lending support for this assertion either.  However, while I
> disagree, and I believe I gave an existence proof to the contrary, I will
> put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem by
> switching the document to Informational status, and can the working group
> accept that outcome?  That seems an easy compromise, and I saw it proposed
> but not fully discussed yet.  This seems quite reasonable as well when one
> considers that PSD's proponents could very likely get the thing published
> as an RFC via the Independent Stream if they continue to find no progress
> here.  So, please discuss this option on the list and I'll measure
> consensus on it at the end of next week as well when next steps are chosen.
> 
> Mike objected to PSD generally, also long after WGLC completed.  This too
> does not appear to have swayed consensus.  (And he's been cogitating on
> that thread for a few weeks now...)
> 
> As a reminder, we still need to do AD evaluation, an IETF-wide last call,
> directorate reviews, and IESG evaluation before it lands in the RFC
> editor's queue.

As editor, I'm happy to update the draft to match whatever the chairs find as 
consensus.

Personally, I think informational is fine.  I'll wait for direction from the 
chairs before doing anything.

Scott K

Scott K