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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 4C2EF1207F8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=GURjmYq/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=e856fMXR
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 3qB59LCLicaU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FBE112081F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CD59F8071F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1562956026; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=BNoqHZZ45tFrm6S6vo75PnXAmY833jXDN0eiUfwvQzM=; b=GURjmYq/wuMsolwFEtcgvTh4MXSaMkNCjhoGtNvEAd39lksEAHjvDlpk TxA6dsJxP6l/D+CXHl8zt9KieJaOAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1562956026; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=BNoqHZZ45tFrm6S6vo75PnXAmY833jXDN0eiUfwvQzM=; b=e856fMXR5SVkCu4bURqvjJ5k88KSF4zSTu0PjNHQqyPpXpwenq3UK8x/ XpMp1YBRIdp65hDuF34zGClWz+xeVxv2k6RPYjjSje/K5fKEJD2drrJSEM MUrmU9XgFbviU56up3suYU3MEHeNvweYzTdb02xrwW8c0JHzO3xNPbszRc RxML5J1/huV7zJsF3RwUYM5MO/NzaTSZ9/VV2yfIjRqoRpI9fxY81cJFIR 42LbnnDdjPWwTDnMCzxaYsMpEDKKw5G9FHtRRBNHfbWtX59Z2RjzmwTmFb BRu5tLoRYUMtezeh0t19FIFZ3nmRMzu3rP0Nj0nGNDCuH2zZB25qnA==
Received: from l5580.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E9E9F80607 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:27:05 -0400
Message-ID: <12139607.XScsT9yxuP@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <53901c28-8542-40a0-87c1-a11e935e6afd@www.fastmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <1783751.gHVjF1RMII@l5580> <53901c28-8542-40a0-87c1-a11e935e6afd@www.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/L7K1iJg9_ok90tw8tLbbyCbpBtk>
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:27:18 -0000

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?

Scott K