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:

>
> * 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.
>
I don't think it's based entirely on naivety.  I think there's a healthy
dose of feeling that the experiment as it's currently designed couldn't
possibly scale to "the entire domain namespace" and/or "all servers on the
Internet", so in that sense from where I sit there's a built in safeguard
against this becoming a permanent wart.  Rather, it's primed as a possibly
useful data collection exercise.

Comparing it to the "obs" grammars of days of yore, the PSD proposal is
much too expensive to become engrained as-is, whereas the old grammars were
relatively easy to carry forward.

> 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.
>
ATPS (RFC 6541) was Experimental, and it flatly failed.  For a more visible
example, Sender ID was Experimental, and I would argue it did too.  Should
they not have been?

-MSK