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

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@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 36DF21207EC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 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, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 aw7vYQmXt8kt for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (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 28BCB1207DE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id h19so9795720wme.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:25:48 -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=rhndh1Ib4gPST2gQQqAHKNpykfaiNuNGw701oyrxBdo=; b=ktVQxyE6rM5bbbatFUxnn5kw0irLAFEW+WRa1xFWBPNt2xoxS+t2ELlUyGdQf8ZOIe rBpUnsSu62g5/z6mBX4fkIHatcBL5MH4GApUO7x5mcuugkX3DHJiikEK6ZbVAOZIO+HK s/oaNgMAjR8i0n9mA46iWvvRquUgVf1Q8SDQgF8k0o3pKqWfuYLSYpSfsTHXauAgXuVc /uXKiP2mT9f9zwExZL5PlT58yUEoutEnbbwXHw0EoWgzTgXDSNtpujsMHPHWYBm7ovf7 vd807V7ihdJrkDWaocmJk5RTef/CgF/zTmHoERKtxlFiFOR0X7+MmbcjQKDgYcvxhRuH wIAg==
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=rhndh1Ib4gPST2gQQqAHKNpykfaiNuNGw701oyrxBdo=; b=NNbVh9O/fw3t4nIQyojWOTQRtgaWGo4d3UM9sH2bJlrhOyHbCZSr0HZrmddAc8WiaV L5bTSkxwm0G5JjvCP1BRPUOAbtKBxT6rUK5I3VqcsEW2ZEmLiGDaQDvYchyBkzjteAch umSBCqlMUHGMhn7ndJZWrz0AUSmzrMqU5Hz2BnQ5DxQRJ2zCxiXATIPN+PBmV+6HaxVM 2e+bvmA8Q0mwIeTBEzf8+0nN9BKNtftROTAnVh0lsjDfxIZdtGMXYB9tU2D7eylBS76O hv7PMOFn/xNMGadCWf8JKs7oJeP3MYf2HTATdOz4FwyA2/yLpyUz/P4eGgCSqUBqS9pX rnWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXimfv7xSniVHeIfQLIwO0rBhjjxlNTOL0MdEGLH6J9IK/qFvh/ b7WpOt/tY58gKPOR03Qohj1uqjAZ5CKyirPV8BvgGg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqym/U/alnPZK5FtiwLq9zu6hiB33jwAY76axhzEtlnUd2faAZp/VqPx25LflLKiOJgK968yALB8N1JVa5no+iQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:751a:: with SMTP id o26mr10645591wmc.13.1562955946120; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfN0+nxpN1P_nk3y5f8MTQ=c7DYNvYic2iDMuCK_bNa=qg@mail.gmail.com> <1783751.gHVjF1RMII@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <1783751.gHVjF1RMII@l5580>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:25:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYf5dZgN3CvcW1RL8ogTnSnuSQHGrL2UZzk48FFKK25Ceg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7dc88058d800983"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z3fcARG5PA64XlSrS7tHT8SlAsA>
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 18:25:50 -0000

+1 Your proposed rewording makes sense.

Michael Hammer

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 1:41 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>;
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".
>
> Also, since this is about ephemera and not protocol, I think it should go
> in
> Appendix A.
>
> Comments?
>
> Scott K
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>