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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmarc <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 2:27 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dmarc-ietf] Mention ICANN/operational limitations
> was: Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
>
> 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?

Either one works for me.

Scott