On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Should I take this as advocating for running the experiment without publishing an RFC about it? Or do you have another suggestion? I don't think the idea of going back and fixing the DMARC-PSL separation issue first is tenable given how long it will take, compared to the urgent need to get some data here. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
