On 11/11/2019 7:46 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
I do have a problem with the conflation of the org domain with a super-organizational "realm" (?) that may impose conditions upon organizations that fall within their jurisdictional purview.
This goes to the essential challenge of a proposal like PSD. It embodies a particular model, in the absence of clarity about the model or broad-based discussion of its appropriateness. (Note, for example, that my review offered some discussion of that sort but got no comment on that discussion.)
In effect, it creates a strategic solution -- that is, a long-lived and embedded mechanism -- without a clear and broad understanding of the organizational space it is working in.
On 11/10/2019 11:34 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
* add text to the PSD draft making it clear that what it's describing is an experiment whose outcome will be taken only as feedback to the revision of the standard (i.e., this is not intended to be the final form of anything), and it is not intended to be deployed outside of the experiment's participants;
Forgive me, but while everyone involved in this has extensive experience and is trying to solve a real and serious issue, this is an astonishingly naive view.
The IETF does standards, not experiments. Not /real/ experiments. What it calls an experiment mostly serves as market testing, with a smidgen of engineering tuning later. For the most part, IETF experiments produce an accepted/failed/needs-small-revisions range of results. What it does /not/ produce is results along the lines of "that was interesting, now let's start fresh and do the real standard."
Perhaps there are exampls of IETF experiments that have permitted entirely starting over, but mostly those only happen when there is a complete failure, and those typically are called experiments.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
