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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 14 July 2019 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 4E4441200E5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 03:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 7-jVUtsRV34p for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 03:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33581120077 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 03:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1563099166; bh=sb56tIj858m4ocEhcSce98+mktKtWNLDSWVWj7R6GdI=; l=3092; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BfizFUS0J4qNc4YuiF8je93r+a+rqarmNtwxsWI4wqKOD1vRj9mm3D3CHIg5LSc4t EOLQOfGra7nTZjgPTdVriOl8PuGnp3A1G+UxKZTudHWXqJB5LdjwiEemy1/f3/5yXt RhZ6xe1GD8LJ+dZPzZF23proFleQk5ghpA4b4zsJikLdHtb98WyK/q/oNf8ko
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([5.170.9.184]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1.2, 128bits, ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC050.000000005D2B001E.00004618; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:12:46 +0200
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <1783751.gHVjF1RMII@l5580> <53901c28-8542-40a0-87c1-a11e935e6afd@www.fastmail.com> <12139607.XScsT9yxuP@l5580>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <672143c9-f0e3-de1a-1c91-a223965554c8@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:12:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <12139607.XScsT9yxuP@l5580>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dMP1VBHRVNPuFtirouSGTYMkNWU>
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 10:12:52 -0000

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>