[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 17:41 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 08374120134 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:41:21 -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=LpA68/lJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=h8dSpE9M
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 rxT-yOGBhuSg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:41:19 -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 6CE6C1207E2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B589F8071F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1562953277; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=eTAzZY1FvDKKDjVyPYNbhQl5nF+FMbOl2sXHUtHZchg=; b=LpA68/lJTKD7V5UUiZrvybrSnDqSpZgFnfIC1MqMXRNKX41O8Q2Rb+io 5lJYrSUIthvjM67MpcnH4rIx8BMjBQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1562953277; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=eTAzZY1FvDKKDjVyPYNbhQl5nF+FMbOl2sXHUtHZchg=; b=h8dSpE9MIZfCXKllLsjRPXOt/GEQ5Ru7t2BtmmwlpjxmiGHY5cIj3Bq6 cIp7v7nnw8mwI72A3C4PnuYWnhHKesG4Hd8YI72uiav81AIt+STtkH0HRP 7rinU6RxTVfzUVLMYquijLdL2bsIJ4MpV2k0nj8dcsDNSIGhcxP6dgSl/v F19txWpXFlZGzaGUktWqvLEgK+1iSnAHV2cLdFZFmoV1ks75eHDAyhxIzJ UIoPxRRUOGgL+ajMjRR/03k1AvPRehYMV2L+P6VTwlPks7EGJV6VB/MkOC pr9ZGo2lYHeT7XNMmmEhWOZznNjJI6+jTSb/dgWtStpKgmVMXAJI2A==
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 CCC85F80607 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:41:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:41:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1783751.gHVjF1RMII@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfN0+nxpN1P_nk3y5f8MTQ=c7DYNvYic2iDMuCK_bNa=qg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbbz_UhBLsURg=eXhRBC2g9OghiN==T9Uq9pFuLtd=b7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfN0+nxpN1P_nk3y5f8MTQ=c7DYNvYic2iDMuCK_bNa=qg@mail.gmail.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/jYWNkguiPx10_iCDPTLSU3rrb1w>
Subject: [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 17:41:21 -0000

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