On 7/2/2014 11:03 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > So perhaps the most useful thing we can do is try to get the wg to > > formulate 'needs' > > I don't see that we have "needs" here. We know how to do this stuff
Stephen, First, note that the industry has operated for quite a long time with only a highly deficient mechanism. My understanding is that it has broadly known that the mechanism was only moderately accurate. Second, note that there has already been significant discussion within the IETF about this topic and no readily-apparent mechanism has developed enough traction to approach consensus. That is, we don't yet have an identifiable constituency that says "here's the perfect solution and we want to promote it." Rather, we have a few different folk exploring -- From my reading of their postings, I don't think even the advocates yet qualify as strong proponents -- approaches. This does yet look like "we know how to do this stuff." In fact, from the long history and the recent discussions, my personal view is that this looks like a difficult topic that needs rather careful thought about design, deployment and use issues, and that it mostly will come down to tradeoffs. > So it's not a "need", it's a "bone of contention". How about > "formulate use cases we would like such a definition to serve"? In looking for a word to describe what the wg can reasonably do about the external work, I settled on 'need' because I think it's /is/ pretty straightforward for us to describe what we want to /do/ with a reliable organizational domain mechanism, independent of how the mechanism might work. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
