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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 14 July 2019 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75A212003F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Lg2sqGh3FGH for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63739120026 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id v186so10858790oie.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ejAeMpXWRm3j+APjC4oW56V26bgVulM1N0sZOxf8Zuk=; b=DnQffwhM6NaHUHu4vpJp8Uu/eAUVSO+CU/uLC5TbytKKrnt/1FLtV65fD+Q2G53YX9 nQIUbAjkgl9jxL+I10GZbZSDGmkIzClIhl2in3IWipjv9cGWkP43Fl9FSqS2P7xdrMoX yp6fR/63IeCf4yeBjpI6q2JBru963eq5NxLlanxfqpc3UCeHKWTpTvel43f/G6Q3EGRJ dP1xhLAn0b1JEPOOnWK8BKEHoxPGsW4NJZsLWXarvA+GcrqQuU1p7AjAWkns3JRwedFK BjZ+ijzLYUlzBwvRHIEwQm79IZR2OLCyg5HfhixK9cVWAr5gROzSd6QbX8OPGz18NCh+ ZQGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ejAeMpXWRm3j+APjC4oW56V26bgVulM1N0sZOxf8Zuk=; b=T6JxL912pOAmubhcK1OyzbiR1s1ebypHyx/81I/UBuVmKALynwHCVEAM5lifLH29Go hJThq2FUgEryMVNugY7oKohzb8myXc+hpNgt07hKTcxcaKWAkoZrZnqwScj+fEgu/KzZ 7T7EycFI+n5OJlOBk0Kks2jORUAk66Pbic94/rsF0Ta1GGJbNmWtyDQ5tF57zXOxML/V ca+EbHd9hNiE3Zbjqb4GlySJ3rLuxwj1v6Lan6kQjmudwxTJWHd6HXFm7C4ZHZqG/SZm 0QHkk0nNz3fJ5joshUtmCAhsKTlxyusgr1LX0UuPEcD5QDhdqEPw9aQErCy/cqb8+0ZN 11yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVL05ADOPPZu7aQt4R5TCv+jU5J+v5O4pbQZfx8nQY0XJ32RCcd EeRtXkpICsyxPKttCP2HKgTDX75mgZbPl6kQhmQ17Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx5Az224EwsWC2RQpgk1t3od5kJoMXFiOI+PREwsavAFNIleQZKwT+9GjJjkYLTBg6QD2DtcK4anukskanVX+g=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:b406:: with SMTP id d6mr10847706oif.173.1563119512347; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <1783751.gHVjF1RMII@l5580> <53901c28-8542-40a0-87c1-a11e935e6afd@www.fastmail.com> <12139607.XScsT9yxuP@l5580> <672143c9-f0e3-de1a-1c91-a223965554c8@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <672143c9-f0e3-de1a-1c91-a223965554c8@tana.it>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 11:51:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G2TVQ5TRvX9VFWFPQJVwg43Z5ZNho0c2oF4fZzp4KKqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004669a8058da61f4a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FbbR2UkKYAHmVvOdwH1Ck0ksLfI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Mention ICANN/operational limitations was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 15:51:56 -0000

I'm good with either of Scott's wordings on this.

I guess I'm making an assumption that the TLD operators know what they can
and can't do
(but that may be a horrible assumption).


Tim
(no hats)


On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:13 AM Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>; wrote:

> On Fri 12/Jul/2019 20:27:05 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:59:55 PM EDT Stan Kalisch wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > .... removal of constraints ... ???
> >
> > "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 removal of constraints outside of the IETF
> that
> > would permit broader deployment".
> >
> > Better?
>
>
> I reply here to the other thread,[*] where you said "Some can, some
> can't."  For the sake of comprehensibility, could that be spelled out a
> little bit more clearly?  For example like so:
>
>     As of the writing of this document, there are operational
>     and policy constraints which prevent this experiment from
>     being deployed globally.  While it is beyond the scope of
>     this document to delve into the details,  be it enough to
>     mention that not all PSOs are actually able to publish
>     DMARC records as needed.  Those who are able to do so and
>     wish to participate in the experiment should contact
>     DMARC-PSD.org in order to have their PSD enlisted.  If the
>     experiment shows that DMARC-PSD solves a real problem and
>     can be used at a large scale, the results could prove to
>     be useful in removing those constraints, so as to permit
>     broader deployment.
>
>
> Best
> Ale
> --
>
> [*] Archived-At: <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_WjDZj17qySDLcIWlcCIan54s0A>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>