I think that if we could get a core set of receivers who would be willing to test this and report on their findings in 3-6 months, that would be great.
--Kurt On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> 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 dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
